Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Wednesday 10 January at Seven o'clock.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 11 January.

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 19 December at Seven o'clock.

MOTIONS FOR UNOPPOSED RETURNS

Mr. Speaker: I call the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means to move the nine motions for unopposed returns.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Return ordered,
of

(1) the total number of Questions to Ministers or other Members which stood on the Order Paper, distinguishing those set down for oral, written priority and written answer respectively, the number of days upon which replies to Questions for oral answers were given in the House; and the total number of Questions for oral answer to which such answers were given in the House;
(2) the total number of Notices of Motions given for an early day;
(3) the number of Members ordered to withdraw from the House under Standing Order No. 42 (Disorderly conduct) showing separately the orders given in the House and those given in Committee; and the Members suspended from the service of the House under Standing Order No. 43 (Order in debate) or otherwise, distinguishing whether the offence was committed in the House or in Committee, the period of such suspension, the number of occasions on which more than one Member was so suspended having jointly disregarded the authority of the Chair, and the number of occasions on which the attention of the House was called to the need for recourse to force to compel obedience to Mr. Speaker's direction; and
(4) the number of public petitions presented to the House distinguishing separately those brought to the Table at the times specified by Standing Order No. 133 (No debate on presentation of petition).—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CLOSURE AND ALLOCATION OF TIME

Return ordered,
Respecting—
(a) applications of Standing Order No. 35 (Closure of debate) during Session 1988–89:

(1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:


1
2
3
4
5
6


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before House or Committee when claimed
Whether in House or Committee
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and

(2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:


1
2
3
4
5


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before Committee when claimed
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and

(b) applications of Standing Order No. 28 (Powers of Chair to propose question) during Session 1988–89;

(1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:


1
2
3
4
5


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Whether in House or Committee
Whether claimed in respect of Motion or Amendment
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and

(2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:


1
2
3
4


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Whether claimed in respect of Motion or Amendment
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and

(c) the number of Bills in respect of which allocation of time orders distinguishing where appropriate orders supplementary to a previous order) were made under Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills), showing in respect of each Bill—

(i) the number of sittings allotted to the consideration of the Bill in Standing Committee by any report of a Business Sub-Committee under Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) agreed to by the Standing Committee, and the number of sittings of the Standing Committee pursuant thereto; and
(ii) the number of days or portions of days allotted by the allocation of time order and any supplementary order to the consideration of the Bill at any stage in the House or in committee, together with the number of days upon which proceedings were so taken in the House or in committee. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Return ordered,
of the number of Instruments considered in Session 1988–89 by the Joint Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments respectively pursuant to their orders of

reference, showing in each case the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of parliamentary procedure and of those within the Committees' orders of reference for which no parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute; setting out the grounds on which Instruments may be drawn to the special attention of the House under Standing Order No. 124


(Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) and specifying the number of Instruments so reported under each of these grounds; and of the numbers of Instruments considered by a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c., and by the House respectively, in Session 1988–89, showing the number where the Question on the proceedings relating thereto was put forthwith under Standing Order No. 101(5). —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS

Return ordered,
Of the Number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for the confirmation of Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into this House, and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1988–89, specifying also the dates of the House's consideration of the several stages of such Bills;
Of all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1988–89 were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated by the House or partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Order ought or ought not to be confirmed;
Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1988–89 were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills,together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended;
Of the number of Bills to confirm Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, distinguishing those proceeded with under section 7 and under section 9 respectively; specifying, in the case of Bills proceeded with under section 9 against which petitions were deposited, whether a motion was made to refer the Bill to a joint committee, and if so whether such motion was agreed to, withdrawn, negatived or otherwise disposed of; and stating for each joint committee to which a Bill was referred the names of the Members of this House nominated thereto, the first and last day of the committee's sitting, the number of days on which each joint committee sat for the consideration of the Bill referred to it, the number of days on which each Member of the committee served, and whether the committee reported that the Order ought or ought not to be confirmed;
Of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for the confirmation of Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the committee;
And of the membership, work costs and staff of the Court of Referees and the Standing Orders Committee. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC BILLS

Return ordered,
Of the number of Public Bills (other than Bills to confirm Provisional Orders and Bills to confirm Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1986) distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1988–89, showing: (1) the number which received the Royal Assent, and (2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this Hose but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments

not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of Prorogation. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Return ordered,
of the days on which the House sat in Session 1988–89, stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; the total numbers of hours occupied in the sittings of the House; and the average time; showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business and specifying, for each principal type of business before the House, how much time was spent thereon, distinguishing from the total the time spent after the hour appointed for the interruption of business. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS

Return ordered,
of the number of Special Procedure Orders presented in Session 1988–89, the number withdrawn; the number annulled; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairman; the number of such petitions certified by the Chairman as proper to be received and the number certified by them as being Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved and be amended respectively; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders.
Of Special Procedure Orders which, in Session 1988–89, were referred to a Joint Committee, together with the names of the commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

STANDING COMMITTEES

Return ordered,
of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items referred to Standing Committees pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.), or Standing Order No. 103 (Standing Committees on European Community Documents) considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items as above considered by a Committee distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate, Matter and other item, the particular Committee by which it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered (including, in the case of the Scottish Grand Committee, the number of Meetings held in Edinburgh, pursuant to a motion made under Standing Order No. 95(3) (Scottish Grand Committee)) and the number of Members present at each of those sittings; and (3) of the membership, work costs and staff of the Chairmen's Panel. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

SELECT COMMITTEES

Return ordered,
of statistics relating to the membership, work costs and staff of Select Committees (other than the Standing Orders Committee). —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recent meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what issues were discussed at the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last held discussions with Ministers of the Government of the Republic of Ireland; and what matters were discussed.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): The joint statement issued following the last Intergovernmental Conference held on 30 November has been placed in the Library. Discussions included the political situation in Northern Ireland, security cooperation and economic co-operation.

Mr. Winnick: Has there been, or is there likely to be, any discussion at the conferences of the remarks made by the Secretary of State on 3 November? This is the first Northern Ireland Question Time since his controversial remarks on what might happen once terrorist violence comes to an end. We all deeply mourn the latest tragic murders of two soldiers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the setting up of the Anglo-Irish parliamentary body will be a step further towards closer co-operation and discussion between the Irish Republic and ourselves?

Mr. Brooke: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, there was brief and informal discussion of that matter. On his second question, I believe that the parliamentary group could do nothing but good.

Mr. Corbett: Given that the Secretary of State has committed himself to more Ulster Defence Regiment patrols being accompanied by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, what steps has he taken to achieve that and how often has it happened?

Mr. Brooke: We have had a longstanding commitment to increasing RUC accompaniment of patrols, whether of the Regular Army or of the UDR. We have set up a working group, working inside the Northern Ireland Office and in collaboration with the security forces, and a similar working group at official level with the Irish, to discuss the modus operandi for adding to the accompaniment. It has been remarked that greater accompaniment has been seen.

Mr. Hunter: As one who is becoming increasingly disillusioned about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, may I seek reassurance, in the light of continuing opposition in Northern Ireland and no discernible decrease in terrorism, on what is being achieved? Are not the value, effectiveness and even morality of the agreement open to serious question?

Mr. Brooke: I can only speak with particular vividness of the working of the agreement and the conferences since I became Secretary of State. During that time, we have had

four meetings, three of which lasted a considerable time. They have provided a great opportunity for me and for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to establish a good working relationship with our colleagues in the Government of the Republic on which we have been able to draw informally between the workings of the conference.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many people in Northern Ireland and outside believe that it would be appropriate to move towards an alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Has the Secretary of State a sense of justice and fair play such as to cause him to consider whether it would be wise to hold an event in which one participant, the Social Democratic and Labour party, would have a head start, while the other, the Unionists, could be locked in the pavilion? Will he cause such an event to be called so that negotiations can take place and attempt to ensure that all meet on a fair and equal basis, with the Anglo-Irish Agreement not being operated during that period?

Mr. Brooke: To use the hon. Gentleman's vivid metaphor, it goes without saying that it would be impossible to have a game or a match unless all sides were on the field. If all sides were on the field, talks would take place.
The Government have always said that they will operate the agreement sensitively in the interests of bringing about talks. The arrangements that we have reached with the Government of the Republic for meetings of the conference in the first half of 1990 will make it possible for there to be uneven intervals between the conferences.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: During the conference, was there any discussion about the electricity interconnector, the improvement of roads in border areas or Northern Ireland's railway problems and the sabotaging of railway lines?

Mr. Brooke: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman in reverse order. On the most recent occasion, 30 November, we discussed co-operation in the context of the railway. We set an agenda for conversations at the conference during 1990, including cross-border co-operation, economic development and approaches to the Community. I do not think that we discussed the hon. Gentleman's first point on 30 November.

Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that it is the Government's policy to maintain and strengthen the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? As it is the Government's policy that there should be no assembly in Scotland, on the ground that a Scottish assembly would injure the union, why does my right hon. Friend persist in advocating an assembly in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend asks a teasing and tempting question. He knows that it has been the Government's policy for a significant time to move towards the transfer of power to local politicians in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McGrady: Under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will the Secretary of State consider setting up a cross-border panel of economists to examine the implications of the Single European Act in 1992? Such a


panel could look into the problems of harmonisation of value added tax, fiscal rates and a common currency for the island of Ireland and report to him on possible ministerial action both north and south.

Mr. Brooke: It has taken us a little time in the working of the conference to set in motion the conversations that we are currently having about the Community. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be somewhat more ambitious than what we have already secured, but it is always sensible to have objectives that go beyond the immediate business. We will have plenty of time in 1990, and I will certainly remember the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I make no comment about the value of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, but I will remember them as we move to the second half of 1990.

Mr. McNamara: First, may I congratulate the Secretary of State on, over the past two days, successfully uniting all Irish parties—Catholic, Protestant and dissenter—to vote against the Government's policies? That is a significant act of unity on which the Government should be congratulated.
Secondly, as the Anglo-Irish Agreement is turning its attention from some important security matters, which were highlighted by the tragic event yesterday, to other more co-operative matters, would it not be in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, the Republic and all parties concerned if the Government's position papers on the various economic and social matters were to be published by the respective Governments so that there could be an informed debate on those important issues throughout the island of Ireland?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's mock congratulations, and I return the compliment. I heard that his party would go into the Lobby last night with the SDLP. The fact that 18 people from several political parties managed to assemble suggests that Labour Members were not present in force.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we are making early progress on cross-border matters relating to the Community. It would be too early to take the step which the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I will bear it in mind.

John Francis Green

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will raise at the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference the possibility of the publication by the Irish Government of the Garda report on its inquiry into the death of John Francis Green, referred to by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces at Official Report, column 817 on 29 November.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that it is over 20 years since I went to Harold Wilson and James Callaghan to ask them why they imagined that they would be more successful than Strafford or Cromwell, and to plead with them not to send Scottish and English troops into Ireland? The answer was that the troops would be out by Christmas—Christmas 1969. Given that the Army is there, would it not be much better to be absolutely frank and to tell all that is known of the truth of John Francis Green?

Mr. Cope: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I was not aware of the advice that he gave to the Prime Minister of the day 20 years ago, or of the Prime Minister's response.
In answer to the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, we are, of course, as frank as we can possibly be in matters of this kind, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that there are operational considerations. On the specific allegations contained in the book referred to in the question, the hon. Gentleman is asking for the publication of a Garda report to the Irish Director of Public Prosecutions. We would not publish such a report in this country and the House would be astonished if we did. It would be even more exceptional for us to ask the Irish to do so. Investigations have been conducted on both sides of the border and in co-operation between the two police forces. I am satisfied that the allegations have been thoroughly investigated and reported to both Directors of Public Prosecutions.

Health Services

Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State ;for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of 1he effect which Irish Republican Army terrorist actions have on the provision of health services for the population in Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): Any terrorist crime that maims or kills adds to the cost of care and therefore reduces resources in other parts of the National Health Service.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that frank admission by the Minister because we are often told that we are spending undue amounts of money in Northern Ireland. Will he join me in paying tribute to the specialists, doctors, nurses, the professions supplemental to medicine, the ambulance workers and the ancillaries for their tremendous work throughout the long years of terrorism?

Mr. Needham: Of course, Sir. That goes without saying. In Northern Ireland we have one of the finest Health Services not only anywhere in the country, but anywhere in Europe, and we are deeply indebted to those who work in it.

Mr. Stott: I support what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said about the Health Service in Northern Ireland. The Minister will be aware that all the catering services of the Western health board have been privatised to a company called Gardner Merchant. Can he confirm that Anderson house, a former maternity unit that is now closed, is being used as free office space by that company? Is he further aware that Gardner Merchant is using telephones and stationery supplied by the Western health board? Is he aware that an environmental health investigation into the kitchens at three hospitals found dirty dishes left lying around overnight, floors not cleaned, meals arriving up to one hour late, staffing being halved and junior doctors in Altnagelvin hospital complaining about the standards of hygiene? Is not privatisation doing more damage to the Health Service in Northern Ireland than the terrorists ever could?

Mr. Needham: The original question referred to IRA terrorism and its effect on the Health Service. I can


understand the hon. Gentleman wishing to make his political points, but they are hardly in line with the question.
On the point about competitive tendering, clearly we should encourage anything that reduces costs in one area in Northern Ireland and can lead to more spending on direct health care. Although Northern Ireland has been slower going down that road than elsewhere in the country, as the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, £1·3 million can now be saved by the Western health board and go directly to improved patient services.

Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that it is always possible to find isolated examples of standards being below par? Can he confirm that expenditure on the NHS in Northern Ireland per head of population is much higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Needham: It is higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom because we have a higher incidence of disease and poverty there. Since 1979, the amount of money that we have spent on the Health Service has increased from £690 million to over £1 billion. That is a real increase of over 20 per cent. We can be justifiably proud of our record.

Security

Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in Northern Ireland.

9. Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest security situation.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in the Province.

Mr. Brooke: Since my predecessor answered a similar question on 22 July, 23 people have been killed in Northern Ireland in incidents directly related to terrorism. They included 12 civilians, six regular soldiers, a part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and four members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. From the beginning of this year until 30 October, 360 people have been charged with serious terrorist offences in Northern Ireland and large quantities of lethal weapons, ammunition and explosives have been recovered, in both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the horrific attack in Derryard last night and in extending sympathy to the families of the soldiers killed or injured. We pay tribute to the courage and resolution of all members of the security forces, who have never flinched in their determination to protect the ordinary decent people of Northern Ireland, prevent terrorist activity and bring terrorist criminals to justice.

Mr. Ross: Did yesterday's carefully planned murders in Northern Ireland convince the Secretary of State that there must be no ambiguity about the need to bring about the total military defeat of the IRA? He did not mention that in his answer. Does he accept that if that military defeat is to be brought about, the IRA must be convinced that it

will not succeed in detaching Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom? Does he further accept that only action will convince the IRA of the Government's firm intention, and that a major step would be to begin treating Northern Ireland, in local government powers and legislative matters, as though it were fully part of the United Kingdom? That is an action which he could put in hand straight away and which would be very telling to the IRA.

Mr. Brooke: The Government's intention remains to defeat terrorism in all its forms by the concerting of military, social, economic and political policies. Those policies are designed to protect the right of the people of Northern Ireland to decide their future. In that sense, I freely give the commitment that the hon. Gentleman seeks. In the latter part of his question, he went a little wide of the security question.

Mr. Molyneaux: Out of respect for the dead and consideration for the bereaved, should we not stop claiming great improvements in security co-operation in the frontier region, particularly in the aftermath of yesterday's events and other similar incidents in which it is clear that the mobile strike forces of the IRA can assemble in the Irish Republic, carry out their dastardly deeds and return to a safe haven unhindered and along roads that have been illegally reopened in the frontier region?

Mr. Brooke: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman shares my confidence in the commissioner of the Garda and the efforts of the Garda to follow up the dastardly crimes that were committed yesterday. I appreciate the frustration, particularly of people in the border areas, about the ability of terrorists to cross the border and return to the Republic. [HON. MEMBERS: "They go both ways."] I agree that there are crossings in both directions. That is a matter which I have already brought most vividly to the attention of the Irish Government and I shall do so again on the next occasion.

Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Martin Galvin, the Noraid representative in America, was involved in the illegal reopening of the Lacky bridge crossing over the weekend? Will he further confirm that the IRA terrorists who so callously murdered the two soldiers yesterday used that crossing to escape from Northern Ireland? Does he share my hope that Americans who might be tempted to support Noraid, believing it to be an innocuous organisation, will cease to give it help and support now that Martin Galvin has revealed Noraid for what we all know it to be?

Mr. Brooke: Mr. Galvin is said to have taken the action that my hon. Friend describes, but to ascribe more importance to Mr. Galvin than he warrants is unhelpful. I am not sure that my hon. Friend is correct in his analysis of the operational question, but I appreciate his main point.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that the Government will never give in to or be influenced by the terrorists? If those 421 British soldiers who have been killed in the Province since 1969 are not to have died in vain, should not the Government be able to prove that the Province is better governed now than it was previously? Should we not have the proper legislative procedures in this House to deal with Northern Ireland legislation which are so clearly lacking? Should we not put


before the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties political initiatives to give them a say, in the Province, in the affairs of their Province?

Mr. Brooke: I wholly reiterate the commitment that my hon. Friend sought in the first part of his question. He asked about good government within Northern Ireland. I am confident that many who live in the Province would point to improvements that we have been able to effect across the life of the Province in recent years, and I hope that that will long continue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and I are always happy to discuss the procedures of the House, but my hon. Friend's question on that goes a little wide of the specific question that I was asked.

Mr. Ashdown: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his sensible comments several weeks ago which caused such a furore? Will he take it from me—I have had personal experience in three anti-terrorist campaigns—that he is right to say that the Army alone cannot defeat the terrorists? It is up to the Army to hold the reins and to maintain law and order while politicians achieve the solutions that defeat the terrorists. Is it not the case that politicians in Northern Ireland would better serve their nation if they showed more imagination and flexibility in achieving a political solution and less synthetic anger about what seemed an entirely sensible statement on the position in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his observations. At the time to which he refers I was asked a question and I sought to answer it straightforwardly. He raised the wider consideration of political advance. I concur with him that the defeat of terrorism will involve political, social and economic developments as well as military effort.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland salute the memory and gallantry of Lance-Corporal Michael Paterson, aged 21, and Private James Houston, aged 22, of the 1st Battalion of the King's Own Scottish Borderers who were murdered savagely yesterday, and that our thoughts are with the other soldier who has been seriously injured? Will the Secretary of State comment on the remarks of the local Church of Ireland rector, who said:
There seems to be complete apathy from the authorities. There seems to be no determination to see this violence at an end. I have tried talking to the Northern Ireland Office. They just will not listen.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he confirms three statements which were reported largely in Northern Ireland newspapers? First, on 4 November, he said:
The IRA could not be militarily defeated"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time. We should not have comments on statements of others.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There were two other statements in which the Secretary of State said that the IRA would not win and that the Government would seek to defeat the IRA.

Mr. Brooke: I am most appreciative of the terms in which the hon. Gentleman couched his remarks about the two soldiers who were killed yesterday. As I said earlier, they died in defence of ordinary, decent people in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Hill,

the Church of Ireland rector, who said in a statement that some aspects were technical matters which he did not understand. I pay tribute to the flexibility deployed by the Army on the border. The fire to the truck which made the original assault was returned from a patrol, not the vehicle checkpoint. The hon. Gentleman asked about my various observations. At no stage in the initial interview did I say that the IRA could not be defeated. I have consistently made it clear that if the IRA is to be defeated, all aspects of Government policy in reinforcement of the military must be deployed.

Mr. McNamara: Will there be a thorough review by the Secretary of State's Department and the Ministry of Defence of the security arrangements at border checkpoints as the IRA seems to feel that it has a particular weapon with which to deal with such checkpoints. I shall take the Secretary of State up on the subject of policy relating to Ulster Defence Regiment accompaniments by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If the policy is to do that as much as possible, why cannot a record be kept of operational decisions when the policy has been implemented?

Mr. Brooke: We always seek to learn from any experiences that we have, and border policy is kept under constant review. I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. In the context of accompaniment, not just of the UDR but of the Army generally, it is recognised that for both operational and resource reasons there may be times when the patrol cannot be accompanied. The patrol will frequently have to go out because no RUC officer is available. One consequence flowing from our study is that we have significantly improved our statistics.

Religious Education

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to broaden religious education of children in Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): The Government recognise the importance of religious education and have reaffirmed this in the provision of the draft Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 which was approved by the House last night. The order also provides for the drafting of a core syllabus for religious education, which will provide a valuable opportunity for represenatives of different denominations to co-operate in devising a syllabus containing the basic tenets of the Christian faith shared by the children of both communities.

Mr. Allen: Does the Minister agree that many of the world's leading religions—Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and others that my colleagues could mention—all practise highly civilising values if carried out in the true spirit of the religion? Will he condemn the use of Christianity, whether it be Protestantism or Catholicism, as a backstop to the bigotry which leads to so much discontent and death in the Province? Will he ensure that all religions are taught in religious education classes so that the community can learn the best from the culture and religions of other parts of the community?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to the positive values which emerge from


Christian belief. I am pleased that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland practise their Christian faith, of whatever denomination, in both the letter and the spirit of that faith. The hon. Gentleman is also right that some people use religion as a weapon, and I share his concern that that should not be the case, particularly in our schools. We seek commonality between our young people's views so that they may learn to build on that positive aspect of the Christian faith.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members welcome the opportunity of greater integration in education in Northern Ireland? We also welcome what he said yesterday when we debated the order on education in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that many parents would like to see those opportunities extended or at least would like to see greater co-operation between different denominations and different schools?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I agree that an increasing number of parents in Northern Ireland wish to have the option of integrated schooling made available, but we shall not impose it. It will be for parents to choose, but the Government believe that parents have a right to that choice. The Government also recognise the importance of my hon. Friend's other point—that for the foreseeable future most young people will not be educated in integrated schools. For that reason, we are introducing new courses in education for mutual understanding, cultural heritage and a common history curriculum to try to achieve the aims that my hon. Friend and I share.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that there are sincere Christians in Northern Ireland who accept state provision of education but are concerned that some of the lessons may impinge on their understanding of biblical truth and therefore ask for the right to let their children opt out of such lessons? Will the Minister grant that freedom of conscience?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am aware of the cases to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. I am also aware of the importance of ensuring that young people have a broad, balanced and coherent education. That is what we seek to achieve through the new curriculum.

Confidential Information

Mr. Mallon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and what decisions were made concerning the prevention of confidential security information being made available to terrorist organisations.

Mr. Cope: I have regular and frequent meetings with the Chief Constable and other members of the security forces. The subject matter of such meetings is properly confidential. I am, however, satisfied that appropriate measures to safeguard material that might be of use to terrorist organisations have been put in place by both the police and the Army.

Mr. Mallon: The Minister will be aware of the bizarre circumstances that led the police to carry out a search for illegal arms, ammunition and terrorist paraphernalia at one of their own stations, at Kells, County Antrim on 12

October 1988. Will he confirm that two police officers serving at Kells resigned from the force, three were transferred to other stations, and one, named McAuley, was charged with the possession of arms and ammunition illegally held on behalf of a Loyalist paramilitary grouping? Can the Minister say whether the investigation carried out by Mr. Stevens involved interviewing the two officers who resigned and the three who were transferred? Was McAuley interviewed and, more importantly, were all the police officers who served at Kells during the two years prior to that date also interviewed?

Mr. Cope: I can confirm that the RUC demonstrated its evenhandedness and its preparedness to consider anything that might have gone wrong int its operation in connection with the RUC station at Kells. Nothing was found in the RUC station at Kells that gave rise to any doubt. As the hon. Gentleman says, certain officers resigned and so on. The Stevens inquiry is looking into all aspects of collusion which are drawn to its attention, but I do not wish to comment on that until Mr. Stevens has completed his investigations.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The matter being discussed is currently before the Northern Ireland courts.

Mr. Speaker: If that is so, we should not proceed, but it is not within my knowledge.

Mr. Cope: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are certain charges pending, so in certain respects the matter is sub judice.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It concerns a constituent of mine.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, we should move on.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is your practice in these matters? Are you accepting points of order during Question Time or at the end of Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member well knows, and the House knows, that if a matter requires the immediate intervention of the Chair I must take the point of order—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may reflect that that is exactly what happens during debates at any other time.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Brooke: There have been four meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference recently. At the last conference we discussed ways of furthering cross-border co-operation in economic and social fields and set in train a programme of work to develop plans in those areas.

Mr. MacKay: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has replaced megaphone diplomacy, by and large, with informed, low-key discussions between the two Governments on matters of mutual interest and concern? That must surely be in the interests of all who live in Northern Ireland, in the rest of the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Brooke: During the four months in which I have been involved with the Anglo-Irish Agreement I remember two occasions when megaphones were used—once by me and once by an Irish Minister. On the next occasion, we agreed that it would be more sensible to continue to operate through the conference, as my hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. Hume: Has the question of funding Conway Mill been discussed in the Anglo-Irish Conference? Does the Minister recall a reply that he made to me on that question, when he said that they were not funded because of allegations of indirect or direct assistance to paramilitary organisations? Does the Minister accept that in the context of Northern Ireland those are serious and dangerous allegations? Does he recall my telling him that when I put the allegation directly to the organisers, they categorically denied it, and with all my experience of Northern Ireland I believe them. They also told me of their willingness to open the organisation's books to the Government, or to anybody nominated by the Government. In all fairness and justice, should not that offer be taken up?

Mr. Brooke: To the best of my knowledge, there has been no discussion of Conway Mill at any of the four conferences at which I have been present, but I congratulate the hon. Member on his ingenuity in reaching the subject of question No. 18. Policy on that issue—on which, as the hon. Gentleman said, I have already given him an answer—was determined by my predecessor, the present Foreign Secretary, and that policy still stands.

Rev. William McCrea: After four years of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will the Minister tell the people of Northern Ireland and right hon. and hon. Members why the promise made to the people of Northern Ireland has not been kept? The agreement was brought into existence to bring peace, stability and reconciliation to the people of Ulster, yet in the House today the Secretary of State has given us a catalogue of murder, death and destruction.

Mr. Brooke: No one would be better pleased than I if the working of the conference, and the agreement, had produced total peace and stability, but there is no doubt in my mind that the co-operation that we have across the border with the Irish Government makes such a future more likely.

Mr. John D. Taylor: In view of the increasing disillusionment in the House with the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the awareness that there must be a way forward to a better alternative, is the Secretary of State aware of the Ulster Unionists' proposals that, during the heavy programme of the Dublin Government's European presidency, there will be an opportunity for a temporary gap in which talks could take place to bring about that alternative? When a reasonable proposal comes from the Ulster Unionists, the time has surely arrived for Dublin and the Secretary of State to do better than just saying no.

Mr. Brooke: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's premise that there is disillusionment, but I can respond, as I responded earlier, to the spirit of the second part of his question. The Government are interested in interpreting and managing the agreement flexibly, with the idea that if there were an uneven gap

between meetings of the conference in the first part of 1990, there would be an opening for talks if all parties agreed.
I am mildly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman referred to a reasonable suggestion from the Ulster Unionists as though that were unusual. I regard any suggestions that they make as reasonable.

Mr. Leigh: Under the workings of the agreement, has my right hon. Friend discussed the new Anglo-Irish parliamentary body? Does he consider it a good omen for Anglo-Irish relations that the Irish parties have sent such a strong team, including the former Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs Minister? Will he express the hope that Unionist Members will send representatives to work on the parliamentary body as there is nothing to be gained from remaining in the bunker and everything to be gained by talking?

Mr. Brooke: The more the British delegation to the group—the setting up of which I welcome—is fully representative of the House, the more effectively it will discharge its mandate.

Republic of Ireland

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Brooke: I expect the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference to discuss a range of subjects, including security co-operation, relations between the community and the security forces, and cross-border social and economic co-operation.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the continuing concern of the Irish Government and, indeed, many people in this country about the case of the Birmingham Six and the fact that the recent change in prison category status seems to be a tacit admission by the British Government that the Birmingham Six are not, and never have been, members of the IRA, will the Secretary of State consult the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister with a view to getting the case reviewed or reopened to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done?

Mr. Brooke: The case of the Birmingham Six is not a normal or natural part of the agenda, although I have to confess that the ingenuity of both Governments in working the agreement means that there are occasional references to subjects which lie outside the agenda. I have on a previous occasion brought the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, arising out of a conversation at the conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Sir Hugh Rossi: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had


meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
This evening, a reception will be held at No. 10 Downing street on behalf of the Royal National Institute for the Blind.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many people are dismayed at the threats by ambulance men to refuse to answer emergency calls except on their own arbitrary terms, despite the generous increased offer that has been made to them?

The Prime Minister: Yes. In some places the emergency service is working well, but in others the position is as my hon. Friend has said. The offer that has been made to the ambulance men is for increases of between 9 and 16·3 per cent. over a period of 18 months. For example, in London leading ambulance men and women have received an offer of a backdated increase of 12·1 per cent., with arrears of £957 already due. Qualified ambulance men and women with the extra medial qualifications—the paramedics—have received an offer of a 16·3 per cent. increase. For them, back pay already accumulated would be about £1,290. Those are good offers and one would hope that they would be accepted.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister knows very well that if she allowed the dispute to go to arbitration there would be an immediate and complete return to work by all ambulance staff. Why will she not let the matter go to arbitration, especially if, as she has just said, she thinks that the offer is such a good one? Why does she not have the confidence to let the matter go to a third party?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has asked that question several times before. He knows full well that these matters are negotiated in the Whitley council and that there is no provision there for compulsory arbitration.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister said this morning that she would be "so pleased" if the ambulance dispute was settled by Christmas. When that would give her and the country such pleasure, why will she do absolutely nothing constructive to bring the dispute to a close?

The Prime Minister: The pay offers are between 9 and 16·3 per cent. With the backdating and lump sums which have already accumulated, they are good offers. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be sufficiently concerned that the emergency services are not operating well to urge the ambulance men to accept those offers so that normal service can be resumed.

Mr. Kinnock: Statements like that from the Prime Minister, who has the power to resolve the dispute, are meaningless. If she will get her right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health to tell the Health Service managers to send the dispute to arbitration, the dispute will end by four o'clock this afternoon. Why does not she do that?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman makes himself very clear. He is not prepared to urge the ambulance men to return to work despite an offer of between 9 per cent. and 16·3 per cent. and the fact that there are lump sums waiting to be picked up which vary

between £650 for leading ambulance men and women outside London to nearly £1,300 for paramedics in the ambulance service within London.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my right hon. Friend noted the outstanding success of the water privatisation share issue, which has transferred the industry from state control to true public ownership? Will she join me in congratulating the millions of new shareholders who ignored the threats that their dividends would be confiscated and that the industry would be renationalised, as promised by the Labour party?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I gladly join my hon. Friend. The water privatisation has been extremely successful. People have been very willing to take up the good offers in the knowledge that privatisation will produce a much better service with improvements for drinking water, rivers and the environment generally. I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friends on the way in which the share issue has gone through. I congratulate all those who will be shareholders for the first time, thus extending the property-owning democracy.

Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Howells: Will the Prime Minister consider devolving power to the people of Wales in the early 1990s, as the majority of Welsh Members in this place are in favour of a Welsh Parliament? Will she ensure that the voice of Wales, as a nation, will be heard in Europe because we, the Welsh, believe that we should play a major role in the Community in the 1990s?

The Prime Minister: I saw the early-day motion in the names of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. I seem to remember that this issue has come before the House before, and that the people of Wales voted overwhelmingly against having a devolved Assembly, and I see no reason to change that view. It seems that they think that they are well represented in the House and by the Government.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dykes: In view of my right hon. Friend's powerful efforts in this connection, and because of the dramatic meeting which took place yesterday, will she consider this afternoon sending an urgent message to President de Klerk asking for the immediate release of Nelson Mandela before Christmas?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's pleasure at the meeting between President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela. I hope that Nelson Mandela will be released as soon as possible. I agree that it would be a great advance. It would help to bring an end to violence and to start negotiations on a South African constitution which will be fair to all people. I shall consider doing what my hon. Friend seeks.

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clarke: In view of the steel industry privatisation, are the Government prepared to use their golden share in the interests of the work forces at Ravenscraig, Clydesdale, Dalziel and Imperial? In view of the outstanding productivity achievements of the workers at those plants, will the Prime Minister assure them and the Scottish people that their steel industry is safe in her hands?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman says, the steel industry is privatised. It has done very well under privatisation. The taxpayer has not had to stump up enormous subsidies for it. Indeed, it has contributed to the Treasury and thus to the social services. We should not consider using a particular share to frustrate any commercial decisions which need to be made. They must take their due and proper course.

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Brown: Has my right hon. Friend noted the promise in eastern Europe of one man, one vote—a promise that is now extending from the Volga, from the Oder and even more from the Danube? Is my right hon. Friend disappointed that that promise is not being fulfilled from the Mersey?

Mr. Speaker: Order. On reflection, I do not think that that is a matter within the Prime Minister's responsibility.

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Barnes: Has the Prime Minister seen The Guardian today—it may not be her favourite read—which shows that one of her advisers is again in trouble for secretly financing an extreme Right-wing secret newsletter, run by a former MI5 agent, which claims that Labour Members are Communist sympathisers? As I am one of those Members—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please put away their newspapers?

Mr. Barnes: As I am one of the hon. Members mentioned, and I am certainly honourable, will the Prime Minister disown that action and sack David Hart?

The Prime Minister: No adviser, employed either by me or by No. 10, is doing any such thing, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. People are free to write what they please—just as free as those who edit Tribune.

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bowis: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the tragedy in Sri Lanka and the slaughter both within and between the communities of that wonderful country. Is she also aware of the need for all countries to support the Sri Lankan people in bringing the communities together? Is she aware of the Sri Lankan Government's request that English be restored as the common language? Will she give every aid to the Sri Lankans, especially through the provision of English language teachers?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's concern about matters in Sri Lanka, which I discussed very recently with former President Jayawardene, who did so much to resolve problems in that country. I know that English is a great unifying language in that country, and we put in a great deal of money—about £500,000 per year—through the British Council for the teaching of the English language. We must exercise a certain amount of caution about where we put teachers until the troubles in that country are at an end.

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell the House when she first knew about the deception perpetrated on the public, the taxpayers and the work force at Rover by the sweetners offered to British Aerospace by the Government? When did she first know? Is it not time that she, her Government and her ex-Ministers came clean with the public about the damaging way in which they handled that matter and about the damage inflicted on the industry and on my constituents?

The Prime Minister: I reject the premise behind the hon. Gentleman's question. I believe that his constituents and all those who work for Rover had a very good deal when it was sold to British Aerospace—[Interruption.] It was a good deal for the taxpayer, who had already had to spend —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be given a chance to reply.

The Prime Minister: The taxpayer had already spent £3 billion on supporting the company and might well have had to find a further £1·6 billion. It was a very good deal for the dealers' network and also kept the Honda link. It was a good deal for everyone concerned and that is precisely what Opposition Members cannot stand.

Mr. Churchill: Bearing in mind that the peoples of eastern Europe are discarding the discredited nostrums of Marxist Socialism, will my right hon. Friend redouble her efforts to ensure that Marxism never again gains a foothold in Britain?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Socialism failed utterly in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe as it had failed in Britain in the years before 1979.

Mr. Boateng: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Boateng: What words of seasonal comfort does the Prime Minister have for people who will be using a rail network that is increasingly underfunded and understaffed and on which there is increasing concern about safety? What words of comfort has she for users and workers when she is cutting the revenue by some 25 per cent. and when there is every reason to expect further reductions in passenger safety and security? Does the right hon. Lady agree that that is not only no way to run a rail network, but also no way to run a country?

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Prime Minister: Of course I will respond to the hon. Gentleman's question. Under the success of our economy, the amount invested in British Rail and in London Underground will be higher than ever before.

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I take points of order after questions and statements.

Mr. Tebbit: It relates to Prime Minister's questions.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I take points of order after business questions and the statement.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week and for the week when we return after the Christmas recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill.
Motion to take note of EC documents relating to package travel. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 19 DECEMBER—Until seven o'clock Estimates Day (1st allotted day, 1st part). There will be a debate on class 11, vote 2, so far as it relates to the accommodation and repatriation of Vietnamese boat people.
Motion on the code of practice for trade union ballots for industrial action.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
At ten o'clock the House will be asked to agree the civil and defence votes on account and the outstanding winter Supplementary Estimates.
WEDNESDAY 20 DECEMBER—Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
THURSDAY 21 DECEMBER—Adjournment debates.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate, in response to the hon. Gentleman's question, that subject to the progress of business, the business for the first week after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 JANUARY—Until about seven o'clock Second Reading of the Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill followed by Second Reading of the Government Trading Bill.
TUESDAY 9 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill.
Motion on the Co-operative Development Agency (Winding-up and Dissolution) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 11 JANUARY—Opposition Day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject for debate to be announced.
FRIDAY 12 JANUARY—Debate on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

[Monday 18 December


Relevant European Community Documents


(a) 5382/89
Package Travel, Holidays and Tours


(b) 7996,189
Package Holiday Travel

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

(a) HC (1988–89), para 1
(b) HC 15-xxxiv (1988–89), para 1 and HC 11-iv (1989–90), para 1

Tuesday 19 December

Estimates Day Debate: Relevant Documents

Second Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee Session

1988–89 on Hong Kong (HC 281)

The Government's observations on the Foreign Affairs Committee's Second Report Session 1988–89 (Cm. 927)

The Evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday 13 December (HC 58-ii)—which is expected to be published on Monday 18 December.]

Dr. Cunningham: I am sure that the House is grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman not only for telling us about next week's business but for announcing the business for the first week after we return from the Christmas recess. I also welcome the fact that he has found time for the House to debate the multi-fibre arrangement, which is of great importance to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Is it true that the Secretary of State for Education and Science intends to announce next week his decision on capital allocations for our children's schools? I emphasise the words "our children's" as it is overwhelmingly the children of Opposition Members who attend state schools. Given the importance of that matter to all our constituents, and the fact that the Government have been able to provide more taxpayers' money for a single city technology college in Nottingham than for the entire state system in the county of Cumbria, will the Leader of the House arrange for an oral statement on that very important subject?
Is it the case that next week the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement on the new financial objectives for 1990–93 for British Rail? Given that those new objectives are likely to eliminate all Government support for the operation of services in Network SouthEast, affecting millions of commuters, and that there will be reductions in Government support for provincial rail services, too, will the Leader of the House ensure that the statement is made in Parliament and that the House is given an early opportunity to debate its consequences for all our people as soon as the House returns from the Christmas recess?
As the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has indicated his intention to abandon Government policy on golden shares, and given the wide-ranging implications of that decision for many important and strategic industries, including aerospace, water and telecommunications, and the threat that that poses to many thousands of jobs in the British economy, will the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on that subject?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the decision to discuss the multi-fibre arrangement because such a debate has been requested by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for some time. We can at least make progress with that.
As to the hon. Gentleman's request for a statement on capital allocations in education, I cannot give him any information—except that he should disabuse himself of the idea that he speaks for "our" children. My right hon. and hon. Friends have as much interest in every sense in the working of the state education system. It is noticeable that a growing number of people of all classes and in all communities take a growing interest in the independent education sector.
On British Rail's objectives, I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I am sure that it is his intention to


make a statement to the House at the appropriate time. In doing so, he will doubtless repeat the point made this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when she emphasised the massive growth in capital expenditure in the rail as well as the road system.
As to the hon. Gentleman's request for a statement on golden shares, that goes beyond any reasonable ambition for next week's business programme. The hon. Gentleman will know that certain matters in respect of the Jaguar car company are being examined by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider arranging an early debate on the affairs of Merseyside? If the Prime Minister cannot answer questions on Merseyside, it would be very convenient to have a complete afternoon's debate on it.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fancy that my right hon. Friend, whose interest in the affairs of Merseyside is well founded, will have an opportunity to draw attention to some of the more remarkable events there if he intervenes in next week's Christmas Adjournment debate, and I hope very much that the matter will be ventilated in that context.

Mr. James Wallace: When the House debates the Broadcasting Bill on Monday, do the Leader of the House and his right hon. and hon. Friends intend to support a motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition proposing that the Bill be referred to a Special Standing Committee? I think that that would be widely welcomed, not only in the House but in the industry.
Will the Leader of the House also arrange for two statements to be made next week, one on the critical meeting of European Community Fisheries Ministers and the other on the rights of British passport holders in Hong Kong? The Government's failure to date to make an announcement on that subject is having a destabilising effect in the colony, and it would be scandalous if an attempt were made to slip out a statement over the Christmas recess. May we hear one before then?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot encourage the hon. Gentleman to expect a positive response to his first question. I shall, however, take note of his two requests for statements, and draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friends. I can give him no firmer assurance at present.

Mr. Ian Gow: When does my right hon. and learned Friend expect to be able to tell the House what the Government have decided about the possibility of introducing a Bill following Tuesday's debate on war crimes? If they decide to introduce such a Bill, will my right hon. and learned Friend and the Patronage Secretary bear it in mind that many of us will feel that, as we were allowed a free vote on Tuesday, we should be allowed one on the Bill?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the matter to my attention. The House certainly expressed its view by a substantial majority on Tuesday, although my hon. Friend will recollect that the debate in the other place took a slightly different course. The

Government are considering what form of action would constitute an appropriate response to both debates, and we shall certainly take account of what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Without asking the Leader of the House to comment on the General Medical Council's inquiry into the sale of kidneys, may I ask whether he is aware that that inquiry highlights the acute shortage of donors and the fact that people are dying for the lack of kidneys? Does he agree that it underlines the urgent need to debate the possibility of an opting-out system for kidney donors to replace the present inadequate opting-in system, and may we have such a debate next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for showing proper respect—as always—by acknowledging that I cannot comment on the case now before the General Medical Council. As for the underlying problem that he mentioned, I shall certainly bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give us a little more information about the Vietnamese debate? Is it intended that we should come to a decision, or merely discuss the matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The debate on the Estimates next week will be allowed to continue for a full three hours, and we shall see how the matter stands at its conclusion.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: In view of widespread reports that the Government intend to change the law to allow about 150,000 people from Hong Kong into this country, will my right hon. and learned Friend allow a debate on the matter as soon as possible? If such proposals are announced, they will represent a complete reversal of everything that the Government said before the passing of the British Nationality Act 1981, and will cause anger in the west midlands.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will no doubt recall that there have been many statements on the position of Hong Kong and its relationship to this country in respect of such matters, which have also been the subject of a report by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. That underlines the extent to which the House pays attention to these matters and it is clearly right for my right hon. Friends to keep the House fully informed of developments on that front.

Mr. Alfred Morris: With regard to the ombudsman's impending report on the Barlow Clowes scandal, will there be an oral ministerial statement next week about the Government's response to the report? Can the Leader of the House say on what date the statement is likely to be made?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I think I have told the House before, the Government are very well aware of the importance of this matter. The Department of Trade and Industry has now commented to the ombudsman on his draft report. We understand that it has been printed and that it is expected to be published before the Christmas recess. The Government undertook to reconsider the whole question once the Parliamentary Commissioner had


reported and we shall make our conclusions known at the same time as the report is published. Given the imminence of that, I cannot even state a specific date for a statement.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In his response to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the Leader of the House clearly recognised the timing difficulties of ensuring that a statement on the Council of Fisheries Ministers could be made in the House before the Christmas recess. Although we all hope that there will be such a statement we should not wish to deter negotiations. What alternative facilities could the Leader of the House make available to hon. Members representing fishing constituencies to ensure that we are fully advised of all the decisions reached at the Council, as this is a matter of critical importance to our constituencies?
On the Broadcasting Bill, has the Leader of the House noticed early-day motions 195 and 196, and can we expect a clear statement on Gaelic broadcasting—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows of the rule that only one early-day motion may be printed in Hansard.

Mrs. Ewing: Then I refer to No. 196.
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise the contribution of Gaelic language television in fostering and extending knowledge of Gaelic culture throughout Scotland, to acknowledge the progress made in recent years by such bodies as Comunn na Gaidhlig and to provide for the proper funding of Gaelic television programming in the Broadcasting Bill, currently before the House.]

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the choice made by the hon. Lady in that respect. The Government are considering the proposals that have been submitted by the various interested parties for an increase in the amount of Gaelic television programmes and we shall announce our decisions as soon as possible.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are well aware of the importance of fisheries matters—not only within Scotland—and they will seek to inform the House as nearly as possible to the usual ways, following the conclusion, whenever that may be, of the proceedings in Brussels next week. I shall bear in mind the point that the hon. Lady made. I hope that it will be possible to follow more or less the normal pattern.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to early-day motion 73, which deplores the barbaric slaughter and consumption of about 4 million dogs a year in South Korea?
[That this House expresses its deep abhorrence at the practice in South Korea of the inhumane slaughtering and eating of millions of dogs every year; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make the strongest representations to the South Korean President and Government to desist from this barbaric practice forthwith.]
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the motion is supported by many hon. Members of all parties throughout the country? May we have an early debate on the matter to bring some pressure to bear on the South Koreans to behave more humanely?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am by no means sure that I can offer the prospect of an early debate, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Korean Government are well aware of the concern in this country about the way in which dogs are reared and slaughtered for human consumption there.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I believe that live television showed part of Northern Ireland Question Time today. That is an improvement on the way in which Northern Ireland is usually handled, with debates usually stuck on late at night. Would it be possible for European matters, which are dealt with in a similar way, and Northern Ireland matters to be given time in the House when many hon. Members are here to discuss the issues?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that I cannot offer an instant comment on the instant broadcasting of Northern Ireland proceedings this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman will know that the management of European questions was one subject of a recent report by the Select Committee on Procedure, and the Government are considering it with care.

Mr. Michael Latham: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention, which he announced earlier this week, to sort out the case of constituents waiting to see the Line of Route?
On Barlow Clowes, if the report is not published before the Christmas recess, will my right hon. and learned Friend make absolutely certain that there is an oral statement in the first week after the recess?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already said that printing should proceed to allow the report to be published before the Christmas recess. I also said that we shall make our conclusions known at the same time as the report is published. That should meet my hon. Friend's latter anxiety. I am glad that I was able to meet his earlier anxiety, and I express my appreciation for his gratitude.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that no Vietnamese people will be forcibly returned to Vietnam until the House of Commons debates the matter next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I repeat precisely the sentence at the end of the speech by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary earlier this week.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As Back-Bench Members had 45 minutes at midnight on Monday to discuss the European budget, does the Leader of the House think it fair, again very late next Monday night, to debate the package tours order, which he knows raises important constitutional questions about the powers of the Commission and the rights of the House? Does he honestly think that it is not an insult to democracy for vital issues affecting the powers of the House of Commons and affecting every person in Britain to be discussed by a bunch of sleepyheads in the early hours of the morning when few people are listening?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate my hon. Friend's continuing interest in this matter. He will know that the issue is expected to be discussed at the Internal Market Council on 22 December. He would be the first to express


anxiety if the House had no opportunity to discuss the matter before that consideration takes place. I am sure that it is right for the debate to be held early next week. The time at which it takes place is one matter to which the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation is relevant.

Mr. Terry Lewis: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Director General of Oftel has missed a good opportunity to control pornographic telephone services. Indeed, his statement last Friday opened the door to even more. Is there no possibility of a debate and an amendment to the telecommunications legislation to get rid of such odious services?

Sir. Geoffrey Howe: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the first point. The best prospect that I can offer of a debate in the near future is either the debate on the Christmas Adjournment or the debate on the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. James Hill: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the political movement in central Europe. Every day it brings up new and further headlines. Is he aware that Hungary has applied to join the 23 nations of the Council of Europe? Should not these matters be brought forward in a debate of political content and apart from debates on the European Parliament?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that my hon. Friend will find that that important point was discussed in the debate a couple of weeks ago on East-West relations. He will know that arrangements have been made for observers from many countries of central Europe to attend Council of Europe proceedings.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: As the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which is currently going through the other House, will, by the time it reaches us, have alternative clauses and one part or other amended, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Second Reading in this House will be free of whipping? Will any amendment concerning the vital clause dealing with genetic research be considered by a Committee of the whole House or by a small Standing Committee upstairs?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should need to reflect carefully on the hon. Gentleman's precise points. He will understand that it is our intention to bring the Bill before the House as Government legislation, but to allow a free vote on consideration of the alternative clauses as they now appear on the Bill. No decision has yet been reached on how that can best be brought about.

Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the first anniversary of the appalling tragedy of Lockerbie approaches. Does he agree that next week would be an appropriate time to have a debate not just to establish the latest developments of the investigation into Lockerbie but to congratulate the Government on the appointment of Air Vice Marshal David Brook as the Government's first national emergency adviser, and give Back-Bench Members an opportunity to press for a freephone 0800 landline number for national emergencies so that families of victims can get information from one centralised point?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will find an opportunity of raising those matters when the House debates the Second Reading of the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill on 10 January, shortly after we return.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I recognise that the Leader of the House is anxious to improve the way in which the House conducts its planning of business. Can he tell us at this stage when the House will take its Easter recess?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: After some discussion, I can help the hon. Gentleman to some extent. We hope that the House will be able to rise for the Easter recess in the week ending Friday 6 April, rather than the following week. I hope that hon Members will be able to make their arrangements on that basis. We should then return at some stage in Easter week itself.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that we have another important statement this afternoon. There will be an opportunity to ask questions on the Christmas Adjournment, so I shall allow business questions to continue for a further five minutes— [HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us—

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. and learned Friend do his utmost to ensure that we have a full debate on Europe as soon as possible, especially so that the attitude and policy of the Opposition can be clarified? If the Opposition are wholeheartedly in favour of Delors 2 and 3, they should state so unequivocally so that people know where they stand. But if they are not wholeheartedly in favour, they should stop sniping at the British Government for not rushing headlong into economic and monetary union.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's desire to secure some clarification of the Opposition's attitude to this and to many other questions. However, I am afraid that I cannot offer him as many opportunities as his question deserves.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House soon be in a position to tell us that the next time the House considers legislation affecting Northern Ireland, it will be in the form of a Bill, not an Order in Council? Will he bear in mind the fact that yesterday evening we were given three hours to consider the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order whereas the similar Act for England had a Second Reading, 200 hours in Committee and four days on Report? Democracy is not really being applied to Northern Ireland.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the hon. Gentleman's tenacity in returning to this question, as he and his colleagues have on a number of occasions, but I cannot offer him any generally acceptable response at present.

Mr. James Cran: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider holding another debate next week on the 1990 European Communities budget to supplement the charade this week, when we had a one-and-a-half-hour debate, of which 45 minutes was taken up by Front-Bench spokesmen and only 45 minutes was left for Back-Bench members to discuss 29 budgetary items and a considerable amount of expenditure? Does he agree that a supplementary debate is required if our constituents are not wholly to misunderstand what this House is about?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Although I cannot promise my hon. Friend the debate that he wants, I understand his point and will reflect upon it with my right hon. Friends in relation to the future management of similar questions.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House assure the House that there will be a statement next week on educational capital expenditure? A planted written question is not good enough, bearing in mind the fact that in a city such as Bradford there are 600 temporary classrooms and the average allocation for each year is equivalent to that for the single city technology college which is entirely irrelevant and superfluous to Bradford's needs? I advise the right hon. and learned Gentleman that several schools in my constituency and elsewhere are in desperate need of permanent extensions and that the temporary classrooms are so badly in need of repair that they are having to be replaced. Should we not have a statement in the House so that we can raise these issues and press the relevant Minister on them?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there will be a statement on that topic in the week ahead. However, he can reflect on the fact that expenditure on education is running at a higher level per head than at any time in history.

Mr. David Nicholson: Would it be possible on Tuesday to debate, first, the implications of the boat people policy for Britain's relations with Vietnam in terms of diplomacy, trade and economic development and, secondly, to expose the hypocrisy on this subject of people and organisations who, 20 years ago, campaigned in the streets and campuses of this country for a Communist victory in Vietnam?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I dare say that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to expand on that important point if he catches your eye in next week's debate, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Will the Leader of the House accept the importance of the plight of hostages everywhere? Will he consider the need for a debate on that subject, even though the matter could be raised under a number of heads in the House? If we cannot have such a debate next week, perhaps he will provide a later opportunity for hon. Members to air the sensitivity of the matter. As some hostages have been held for so long, it is time that the voice of the House was heard.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's wisdom in underlining the sensitivity of the matter. That needs to be done on every possible occasion. I am sure that the whole House agrees on the importance to the families of hostages and to all hon. Members of securing the early release of people held hostage anywhere and in any circumstances. All that I can do at this stage is to join the hon. Gentleman in underlining how seriously the House views the matter. He can raise the matter during debate next week. I cannot promise anything beyond that.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Following the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), will my right hon. and learned Friend consider whether next week's debate on Merseyside and the interesting activity in Birkenhead and St. Helens could be extended to include Teesside so that we can discuss interesting events in Hartlepool? Is he aware that

interesting allegations have been made about the replacement of the present Labour Member for Hartlepool by a new candidate?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's fascination with that subject. The causes of interest in the matter are so diverse that I cannot offer the prospect of a debate on all of them.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Leader of the House examine the report published last Friday by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on the levels of PCBs, dioxins and furans in Britain? Of the 78 sample points, 12 demonstrated serious local contamination. Will he arrange for a statement to be made as soon as possible on why the levels are so high? Is he aware that some of those 12 sample points were in Wales?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has raised a matter of some technicality. I confess that I cannot disentangle all the acronyms that he mentioned. I shall look at the report as soon as possible and reflect on the point that he made.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have already moved on beyond the point that I mentioned, but I shall allow business questions to continue for another three minutes. Hon. Members whom I have not called will be given some precedence if they wish to participate in the debate on the motion for the Christmas adjournment.

Mr. Harry Cohen: May we have clarification of why the junior Health Minister rubbished the findings of the Government's medical officers of health about the health risks associated with sugar? It seems that the Government are not interested in public health and health education, but that the profits of their allies come first. Was the Minister's cover-up a sweetener for the sugar industry?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Every time the hon. Gentleman asks for a debate, his request is so long that he almost achieves one.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply about a debate on democracy on Merseyside? For many years he was a Member for Merseyside and it would be nice to have a debate that included explanations from Tory Members of why there are practically no Conservative Members in Merseyside seats. There are now no Conservative Members in Liverpool and last time the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) won her seat by only 200 votes. Do Tory Members who raised the matter suggest that the people of Merseyside do not understand democracy? The people of Merseyside understand it very well and are using their democratic powers to ensure that the Conservative party is a spent force on Merseyside.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity of making a point in exactly the opposite direction. When I was adopted as candidate for Bebington, west of the Mersey, and the hon. Gentleman was adopted for Liverpool, Walton, the nine seats of the city of Liverpool elected six Conservative and three Labour Members, and there was a Conservative Member for Walton. At that time Merseyside was a great deal more prosperous than it is today.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: After the statement.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order before the statement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. After the statement.

Mr. Skinner: You allow others to do it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing this place.

Mr. Skinner: No. I am not abusing this place.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I take points of order after statements.

Mr. Skinner: Not for everyone.

Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood): Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Short: Mr. Speaker, please—

Mr. Speaker: No. Not even please. The hon. Members—

Ms. Short: But Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after the statement in the usual way.

Ms. Short: You said that you would take points of order after questions.

Traffic (London)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about new initiatives to relieve traffic congestion in London. My proposals are being published today, together with separate consultation papers setting out my provisional conclusions on the four London assessment studies. I am placing copies in the Library.
The economic boom of the 1980s has had a dramatic impact on London. Population, employment and incomes have all grown and demand for transport has exploded. There is every indication that this trend will continue. We must provide for planned commercial and residential development, and proposals for the transport systems will in turn be an essential element in the development plans which the London boroughs are preparing.
Last month, I announced our plans to transform London's public transport systems. Over the next three years, London Regional Transport plans to invest a further £2·2 billion on modernising and upgrading its systems. That includes work on the extension of the Jubilee line to docklands. Subject to further work, I expect that a Bill for a new line to relieve congestion in central London will be deposited next year. Network SouthEast plans to spend a further £1·2 billion over the same period to improve its services for London's commuters.
It is clear that public transport will always play the key role in moving people in and out of central London, but congestion on the roads must be tackled too. We are improving the quality and capacity of trunk roads wherever possible, but we must make the best use of existing roads. Our aim is to keep traffic flowing as freely as possible. The discussion document I am publishing today brings forward new proposals for traffic management and parking control.
First, I propose a 300-mile priority route system—red routes. Stopping, loading/unloading, and parking will be severely restricted. A pilot scheme will start next summer to establish the best way of implementing the proposal. I shall begin the necessary discussions with local authorities and the police immediately.
Secondly, a consistent and businesslike approach to the management of these major routes is essential. I propose legislation to establish a traffic director to ensure the coherent development and operation of the red routes. The traffic director would not replace the existing highway authorities, but would have a co-ordinating role on these routes, with appropriate reserve powers.
Thirdly, I strongly believe that the fixed penalty level for illegal parking on the red routes and possibly elsewhere in London should be increased. The Government will consult representative organisations on possible legislation and the appropriate level of fine.
Fourthly, new traffic management guidance will aim to ensure that yellow lines are strictly confined to places where they are needed. Drivers must be convinced that where there are such restrictions they are needed and will be rigorously enforced.
Fifthly, effective enforcement of traffic and parking regulations will be a key element. The police and traffic wardens will remain responsible for enforcing parking bans. The role of the traffic wardens will be enhanced. They will be given powers to authorise removals and wheel


clamping. Local authorities would take on the control of parking at meters and residents' bays, allowing traffic wardens to concentrate their efforts on the red routes and the more serious offences.
We also need to go on improving the road system. We already have a substantial programme in London. This is geared mainly to upgrading the north circular and improving access to docklands and east London. One of the most notorious bottlenecks is the Blackwall tunnel, so I am announcing today my decision to add to the programme a scheme for a third tunnel. There will also be a review to see whether another crossing is needed between the Blackwall tunnel and Tower bridge.
The four assessment studies have been detailed and intensive studies. They have looked at a range of public transport, traffic management and road improvement measures on a comparable basis. They show that public transport improvements are needed but cannot by themselves solve the traffic and environmental problems, however much we invest in the rail systems. Road improvements are necessary to increase the efficiency of the system, to reduce accidents, and to take traffic out of residential areas.
The consultants looked at a large number of options. They have narrowed these down to two or three recommended options in each area. Most of the major new roads that they considered have been eliminated. Even so, they have recommended some schemes which I do not consider should be pursued further. These have been ruled out. I am prepared to go forward only with the new road schemes that will bring significant overall benefits, taking full account of the environmental effects. I have selected for consultation a number of ideas for new public transport projects and a limited number of new road schemes, mostly to improve existing roads.
New proposals for the transport systems in London will be vital to securing environmental improvements and creating opportunities for new development. In preparing proposals my Department will therefore work closely with the Department of the Environment, local authorities, transport operators and the police.
Copies of the consultants' reports will be available at public libraries and town halls in the study areas, and will be sent to representative local organisations. Free leaflets setting out the consultants' main findings and recommendations will be circulated widely, together with a statement of the Department's initial views. This will set out clearly the options that have been rejected and those on which comments are invited.
It is now nearly 18 months since the consultants first published their options. There has never before been such wide and open consultation on transport studies. But I am conscious that it has caused great uncertainty. I am now determined to end the uncertainty, to reach early decisions and to remove the threat of blight as quickly as possible. I am therefore asking for comments by 28 February.
Any schemes entered into the national road programme will have to go through the full statutory procedures which provide for public inquiry. The amount and timing of any additional expenditure would be for decision in the public expenditure survey in the usual way.
These proposals, together with those for the Jubilee line, the central London rail study and the massive investment in Network Southeast, show that this Government have a balanced approach to London's transport problems. The measures that I am announcing

today, together with those that I have brought forward in recent weeks, will give our capital city the improved transport system that it deserves and I commend them to the House.

Mr. John Prescott: At the outset, may I say that I appreciate that fact that the Secretary of State gave me these reports at 2 o'clock rather than at 3 o'clock, which is the normal time? That helped a little, but the reports are somewhat complex and he will appreciate that it would not be proper to make judgments on the details of the scheme at this stage.
The statement confirms the sensitivity of the Government and the Secretary of State to the importance of transport. I welcome some of the limited steps towards intervention by the state, which in the past the Secretary of State has labelled as being eastern European in approach. No doubt the new views of the new Secretary of State for the Environment in the Cabinet and his attitude towards the car has concentrated the right hon. Gentleman's mind. Will the Secretary of State confirm that after 10 years of praising the values of the free market, the Department of Transport now seems to be learning to speak the language of planning, co-ordination, integration and even red routes, which have more to do with the blue rosettes of the local elections and the general election which are around the corner?
As the Secretary of State knows, he received a delegation from Wandsworth, which has produced plans rejecting most of the ideas in his paper. Wandsworth is a Tory council which wants more public transport, not a road solution. If anything is clear from the statement, it is that it is fundamentally about what we all know the Department of Transport is always involved in—a basic road solution to a transport problem.
We have had statements from the Secretary of State and various bodies such as the central London rail study and the east London rail study, and we have had plans for the Channel tunnel. Next week we are to get British Rail's new corporate plan. Is it not time that we had a strategic body co-ordinating transport in London, such as those which exist in every other capital city in western Europe? That is the only way to deal with the major problems facing those cities. Does the Secretary of State agree with my calculation, after looking at the reports, that the adoption of all the preferred schemes would cost £7·3 billion and involve the demolition of 2,470 homes?

Sir William Clark: Who worked that out?

Mr. Prescott: This is a statement about the Secretary of State's preferred routes. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read it, he will find that what I have said is true.
Has the Secretary of State discussed with the Treasury whether the resources would be made available to meet such commitments? Does he remember the Prime Minister giving similar assurances about who would pay for environmental improvements to the high-speed rail link just before the elections in Kent last year? Kent may have retained a Tory council, but the Channel tunnel link is in one hell of a mess.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much of the £2·2 billion invested in LRT and the £1·2 billion investment in British Rail, as set out in his statement, is provided by the Government? Is it not the case that public transport in London receives less financial support from


the Treasury than ever before, and that the amount is lower than for any other European city? Will he confirm that next week when he sets British Rail's new financial targets he intends to cut the last £150 million of financial support for Network SouthEast? Is it true that the targets will make London the only city in Europe whose rail network receives no financial support at all from Government?
The Secretary of State claims that public transport, traffic management and new roads must all be judged on a comparable basis. Can he explain why the Department has assumed in the studies that rail, tube and bus fares will be increased by 46 per cent. in real terms over the next 10 years for commuters in the south-eastern and London regions?
We all know that the Department of Transport is obsessed with new roads. Can the Secretary of State explain the extraordinary claim in his statement that major new roads improve the environment? The first effect of the roads will be to knock down thousands of houses and they will increase the number of cars in our cities. The will also increase environmental damage and the levels of gases in our city and those gases are already at twice the international limits. The building of such roads flies in the face of the Prime Minister's statement in the House that she intends to reduce exhaust gases which are contributing to the problems of the ozone layer. It is more to do with rhetoric than fact and that is evident when we examine the statements made by the Secretary of State. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House how much growth in road traffic he expects in the next 10 years, and what effect it will have on pollution levels and the other consequences to which I referred?
Finally, on red routes, although we welcome the new initiatives to reduce congestion, can the Minister answer two relevant questions? First, given that only 2 per cent. of people who park illegally ever pay the fine, what measures will he take to increase and improve enforcement levels? Secondly, what assurances about access can he offer to people who live and work along red routes?
The Secretary of State's statement is one of the first examples of what we can expect from the Department of Transport. His language may change, but the Department's priorities do not, and the statement will do little to relieve Britain's and London's great transport problems.

Mr. Parkinson: If the House were to judge my statement and the hon. Gentleman's reaction to it, it would draw the conclusion that the rhetoric was in his remarks and the practical proposals were in mine. The Government have a totally balanced approach to transport problems, as we have shown through our proposals to the House.
The hon. Gentleman talked about public transport. We shall be spending more money than ever before on the national roads programme, in the three years starting next April, but in the same period we shall also spend more money on public transport, and the biggest ever road programme will be exceeded by the biggest ever rail and tube investment. I am extremely sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot do the arithmetic and see that for himself.
The hon. Gentleman talked about demolition, and that is a serious issue. Under the studies as originally set out, more than 10,000 homes in London were threatened, and that has caused enormous uncertainty. As a result of combining our reaction with the publication of the proposals, the threats have been removed from more than 85 per cent. of those houses, and I suspect that that figure will be reduced substantially by the end of the consultation period, which for that reason we want to keep as short as possible. We are removing uncertainty with this statement.
The hon. Gentleman has often talked about investment and resources. I have told him time and again that under the previous owners—the Labour GLC—subsidies were increased and investment was reduced. Under the present Government, subsidies have been reduced and resources have been made available for huge increases in investment. We think that producing a better system is the right priority.
At a time when the use of the tube system at peak hours has increased by 35 per cent. and off peak by 85 per cent., it seems extraordinary that Opposition Members persistently argue the case for subsidy rather than investment. Why subsidise a service which is already hugely in demand, and for which people demonstrate that they are prepared to pay a reasonable price? The increase in fares is a figment of the hon. Gentleman's imagination. No proposals of any kind exist to increase fares by 46 per cent. during the next 10 years. I simply do not know where that figure was dreamed up. It does not feature in any documents that I have seen, and there are no such proposals.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned red routes. I accept that he has not had time to absorb all the proposals, but the discussion document makes it clear that transferring some of the responsibilities to the boroughs will relieve police and traffic wardens of a substantial part of their existing duties and leave them to focus on the enforcement of restrictions on red routes and on parking offences which break the law and are criminal.
Finally, I agree with the hon. Member that these proposals have substantial implications for people who live or have shops on red routes. That is why we propose substantial consultation.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated on the massive increase in investment in public transport that he has announced, which reflects economic success and is in marked contrast with what the Labour Government did? Is he aware that the existing traffic management schemes in, for example, the Aldwych, to the south of Westminster bridge and last week in St. George's road have on the whole been disastrous in that they have been completely counterproductive? Will he seriously consider whether his Department should take over control of transport in London so that we can have a more unified system?

Mr. Parkinson: We do not think that London's experience under a strategic authority is a great recommendation for strategic authorities. We had one—the GLC—and the House, with one or two notable exceptions, was glad to see the back of it and has no wish to recreate it. We believe that traffic management schemes have an important role to play. We have been impressed by improvements as a result of new traffic control systems in places such as Hanger lane—the so-called SCOOT system.


Some 120 independent junctions are controlled by it at present, and we plan to increase that number to 700 over the next five years.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my conditional welcome for his announcement? He has obviously backed off from the original proposal, which was to have a network of new roads. That is welcome. I also have a conditional welcome for red routes and an increase in fixed penalty fines, which I believe will be vital. A worrying consequence of that is that there may be fewer yellow lines. I ask the Secretary of State not to go too far in that direction because other roads need protection from unthinking parking.
Having done half a U-turn, the Secretary of State should do the other half. All the opinion surveys show that the vast majority of people in London do not believe that there should be more roads. Rather they believe that there should be less traffic. We need to decrease the supply of traffic, not to increase the supply of roads. In that context, will the Secretary of State consider, seriously and urgently, the possibility of further restraining trafic coming into London, including the possibility, which he said that he would consider, of a central London licensing system which would discourage people from driving into London? He knows that traffic has increased during the past decade.

Mr. Parkinson: We do not propose to reduce the number of yellow lines substantially. We are saying that they should be there only if they will be enforced. Not enforcing them discredits the system. We are saying that boroughs should examine their systems and that if they do not or cannot enforce yellow line restrictions, they should not discredit the system, and that where they exist they should be rigorously enforced. We think that that is a more sensible approach.
We have to recognise that the public are quite capable of making a choice if given a choice. That is why road traffic commuting has fallen by 11 per cent. and rail traffic commuting has increased by 25 per cent. We are putting very large sums of money into ensuring that people have a choice. If the hon. Gentleman examines the assessment studies with his usual care, as I am sure that he will, he will see that most of the proposals feature extensions of public transport. There are fewer road proposals and more public transport proposals, but we have to recognise that there is still a demand for road movements, and that is what we are catering for.

Mr. John Moore: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, especially on the assessment conclusions that he has produced for those who have a constituency interest in this matter. I congratulate him on the balanced way in which he has put together a package of proposals combining substantial investment in public transport with excellent conclusions on red routes.
Perhaps I may include you, Mr. Speaker, the most distinguished Member of this place, as you are not able to speak on behalf of your constituents in Croydon, North-East, in welcoming wholeheartedly, for yourself and myself and our constituents, the clear decisions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken—this is made clear by his conclusions on rejected schemes—which will remove the blight and the difficulties that many of our constituents have suffered for 18 months or more? I thank my right hon. Friend for listening so carefully to

the representations that have been made throughout Croydon—Croydon, North-East, Croydon, North-West and Croydon, Central—

Sir William Clark: And Croydon, South.

Mr. Moore: And Croydon, South, of course. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for acting so decisively on behalf of all the Croydon constituencies.
Can I—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: He is trying to get him—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a former Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Skinner: So what?

Mr. Moore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend specifically on keeping the remaining consultation period very brief. There was an extensive period of consultation throughout the London area.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend and you, Mr. Speaker, for your welcome, through my right hon. Friend, for the decisions. I accept that in Croydon, in particular, there has been tremendous uncertainty and blight. I hope that today's announcements will remove most of that and that we can, as my right hon. Friend said, keep the consultation period brief. We have substantially narrowed the range of options to be considered because we recognise that there are still nearly 2,000 families who feel threatened. We do not think that we should prolong their uncertainty.

Mr. Ron Leighton: I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will recognise that we have a transport crisis in London. The capital is dirty and congested and traffic is moving slower than it was in the days of the horse and cart. This is due basically to lack of investment. Plans have been available for four or five decades to solve the problem, but nothing has been done.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the basic need is public transport? It is the only way to get the capital going. Yet the Government are reducing the public contribution to public transport. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is more investment, but it is not Government money—it is permission to borrow, which increases fares. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that there is not enough public transport and too many people want to get on it, so he will solve the problem by pricing people off public transport by increasing fares. That is the only way in which he is getting investment, and it is the wrong approach. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not put proper investment into public transport, which is the only way to get London moving again?

Mr. Parkinson: I will give the hon. Gentleman three figures which show that he is talking nonsense. In the past five years, the number of commuters coming into London on Network SouthEast has increased by 25 per cent. The number of people using London Underground at peak times has increased by 35 per cent. The number of people using London Underground off peak has increased by 85 per cent. During that time subsidy has been falling and


investment has been increasing. If the hon. Gentleman studies the figures he will realise that he is drawing entirely the wrong conclusions from the facts.

Sir Barney Hayhoe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to spend more money on investing in public transport than on roads will be greatly appreciated by all those who are concerned with transport problems, as will his determination to make better use of existing roads by having better traffic management? He is to be commended heartily for those decisions.
I wish to be more specific and to raise a constituency issue in Chiswick. The removal of the threat of a major road being constructed along the line of the railway from Kew bridge to Barnes will be seen as a most welcome Christmas present. It is extremely good news for thousands of my constituents who have campaigned against that old proposal, which I hope is dead and will be buried for ever more.
I remain unconvinced about the need for massive new investment in urban roads in London, but careful consideration will be given to the proposed road tunnel from Chiswick to Wandsworth. We shall examine carefully its effect upon the local environment where it goes into the ground in my constituency—that is, if the tunnel is ever built—and its effect on local housing. By and large, however, my right hon. Friend deserves many congratulations on his statement.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reception of the proposals. He has been a great defender of his constituents' interests. I am glad that he realises that the very radical proposal for the tunnel is worthy of further consideration, and I look forward to receiving his comments and those of his constituents.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on at least recognising, at long last, that there is a transport crisis in London? Londoners know that fact to their cost, on a daily basis. They have had to live with it for years. They also know the reasons for the crisis—first, the Government's failure over the past decade adequately to invest in public transport infrastructure and, secondly, the abolition of what was the only strategic transport planning authority, the Greater London council. That authority found itself in great difficulties because of the Government's hostile reactions when it wanted to invest in London Regional Transport.
Despite what the Secretary of State said about the level of investment, is he aware that while British Rail will receive £605 million per year from the Government for investment purposes, the rail system in West Germany receives £4·8 billion per year? That is the only way to deal with our crisis. The Government have created the crisis, yet they come to the House and expect us to be grateful to them for a few packages of measures designed to deal with the crisis that they created. It is too little and it is almost too late—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is dealing with questions on a statement. There will be opportunities on the Christmas Adjournment motions to deal with the more detailed debating points.

Mr. Parkinson: Until four years ago, London Transport was under the control of the Greater London council. If there has been a failure in investment during the past decade, for the first six years the hon. Gentleman was party to that failure. During the period since we took over the control of London Transport, investment has increased substantially and we now have the biggest investment proposal that London Transport has ever had, amounting to more than £2·2 billion in the next three years.
As I said earlier, there has been a substantial increase in the number of passengers. That has clearly produced a substantial increase in resources. That is how, with a reduction in the subsidies, London Transport still finds itself in a better position to invest.

Sir. John Hunt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most reasonable people will warmly applaud his statement, which I am sure will bring both relief and reassurance to most people in London? Does he realise the amount of unnecessary anguish created for many of my constituents, and for others in Croydon and elsewhere, by the premature publication of a large range of various options, most of which have since been abandoned? Will he ensure that in future the faceless planners and consultants will not be let loose on London's traffic problems in the way that has happened on this occasion?

Mr. Parkinson: That practice was a feature of transport planning a few years ago. I remember a time in my constituency when seven possible routes for the M25 were declared, which meant that seven areas were blighted. The idea that there should be open discussions, with every conceivable option put on the table, although well intentioned, actually causes enormous alarm and concern. It is for that reason that we have accompanied the publication of the final assessment studies with our decisions on which of them will be pursued. That has relieved more than 85 per cent. of the people who felt threatened of the threat that caused them such concern. We want to reduce the number still further. That is why I hope that all colleagues will urge the boroughs to co-operate in keeping the period of consultation sensibly short.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Does the Secretary of State accept that three particular proposals will be welcomed in my constituency—first, the third bore of the Blackwall tunnel, which will relieve severe congestion; secondly, the commitment to the extension of the docklands light railway, which will help to link homes and people in Greenwich with jobs in docklands; and, thirdly, the abandonment of complicated schemes through Blackheath village which would have devastated it, about which there will be great relief? At the same time, however, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the balance or emphasis between private and public transport with a view to the future of London's roads and the increasing number of people turning to cars? Whatever modifications are made, congestion will probably continue for the next decade. The inclusion of south-east London on the tube network would be greatly appreciated and I should be grateful if the routing of the Jubilee line to include Greenwich could be further considered.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. I think that all hon. Members will agree that south London is badly served by the Underground. As she knows, the ground there makes tunnelling difficult and that is why most of the tube network is concentrated in north London. I have no decision about the Jubilee line, but I too like the prospect of it going south of the river to the Greenwich peninsula. That, plus an extension of the docklands light railway to Lewisham, which is another possibility, would link that part of south London into the Underground system. That is badly needed and would contribute a great deal to the relief of congestion.

Mr. Steve Norris: Does the Secretary of State accept that what he has announced today is extremely welcome, but that there is still concern in my constituency about the ludicrous journeys that many of my constituents undertake to get into London from the east —journeys which frequently average just above walking pace? I understand why the Department has chosen to reject, for example, the major widening of the A10 and the new road across Hackney marshes down the Lea valley, but at the very least one of the pilot projects for the new red routes should be either Commercial road or East India Dock road where congestion is at its worst.

Mr. Parkinson: We have not yet settled which will be the trial stretch. We have been considering the A1, the A21 and the south circular, but I will add my hon. Friend's suggestion to the list. As I am sure that he and other hon. Members know, the Department controls about 220 of the 300 miles, but the other 80 miles are under control of the boroughs. We hope for co-operation from the boroughs so that we can speedily implement the announcement that I have made today.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The proposals contained in the remaining two options of the east London assessment study for a tube line from Chelsea to Hackney and the extension of the east London line to Dalston will be welcomed by Hackney's residents, and they would be even more welcome if they were combined with proposals for more public transport? Am I right in thinking on road traffic proposals that words designed to smooth and massage will be more environmentally damaging than the document admits? I shall reserve my constructive criticisms until I have consulted my local residents, beginning on Sunday.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. We want a proper consultation exercise and we look forward to receiving considered views from him and his constituents.

Mr. James Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that commuters to London from my constituency in Kent face some of the worst journeys in the morning rush hour and in the evening? Will he accept that to halve the width of many of the inadequate routes from the south-east by the use of bus lanes makes no sense whatever, that to clamp wheels on those strategic routes is nonsense, and that the ripping out of parking meters in central London, which will merely add to the churning effect of traffic desperately looking for somewhere to park legally, is not at all helpful?

Mr. Parkinson: It was because we were aware of the difficulties for north Kent commuters that in September I

announced and approved the orders for £257 million worth of new rolling stock, the improvement and lengthening of 63 stations and a new signalling system on the north Kent line. We shall be looking carefully at the use of clamps on red routes, but I think that towing away would be a much more appropriate sanction.

Ms. Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State will be aware that thousands of people in Hackney will be pleased and grateful that at least some of the major road schemes which threatened to plough through my borough have been turned down and I am sure that he will want to join me in congratulating the thousands of assiduous campaigners without whose energetic and imaginative lobbying of hon. Members on both sides of the House the roads would not have been turned down. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the problems identified by the surveys is that there is still no tube station in Hackney, the only London borough without a tube station? When the right hon. Gentleman considers proposals for a Chelsea to Hackney line, will he bear in mind that any Secretary of State who succeeded in bringing a tube station to Hackney would live for ever in the hearts and minds of the people of Hackney?

Mr. Parkinson: Who could resist such an invitation? I agree that the public have made their views known in an effective way and I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that the Government have responded to the arguments put forward. I look forward to the in-depth studies on a Chelsea to Hackney line, which has many things going for it. It could be linked with Chingford and relieve some of the pressures to which other hon. Members have referred this afternoon. I note what the hon. Lady said and I thank her for the way she said it.

Sir William Clark: The very fact that my right hon. Friend has now ended the 18 months uncertainty and removed 85 per cent. of the blight on property, is welcome. I have received more than 3,000 letters against the south London assessment. It seems that somebody in the Department simply took a map of Croydon and started drawing lines on it with a felt pen, blighting a great deal of property. I welcome the fact that some of that uncertainty has disappeared, but if the options that have been cancelled had been considered carefully before the original document was produced it would have been clear that they were impractical. Option 9, through Sanderstead, affected my constituency and that is why I had so many letters from my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend give me a categorical assurance that option 9 is not now to be pursued and that, consequently, all those property owners in Sanderstead, the sellers and the rest, will now be free to sell the rest of their properties, something that they have not been able to do for the past 18 months?

Mr. Parkinson: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Option 9 is a dead duck.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Was the reference in the Minister's statement to the environment and green sites a token afterthought? Has he not already given prior private assurances to some Conservative Back Benchers that some of the roads will be in tunnels? How does that compare with the rejection and sabotaging of tunnelling in Labour areas such as Leyton, despite the fact that it was to be


financed privately? Is there not a phrase for that approach —political corruption? Will the Minister now scrap the environmentally scarring M11 link road?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman is working himself up to a fine but totally spurious state of anger. If he will examine the proposals as they affect the area that he assiduously represents, he will find that there are substantial public transport options designed to help. There is no question of the consultants, in considering the alternatives that they—not the Department—put forward, being told to look after one area at the expense of another. The consultants were asked to examine solutions for London, and their recommendations are the result.

Sir George Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most Londoners will consider the proposals a realistic and balanced response to the growing pressure on London's transport network due to the capital's booming economy? Far from being a road-dominated solution, as suggested by Opposition Members, the exciting feature of the documents published today is the fresh ideas that they contain for new investment, after many decades, in British Rail and London Regional Transport.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous pressure on the Central, District and Piccadilly lines in west London, and on the wave of support for the proposals in the documents for a new tube line from Queen's Park to Ealing Broadway and from Shepherd's Bush, through Turnham Green, to Richmond?

Mr. Parkinson: One of the myths that Opposition Members do their best to promote is that the Government are hostile to public transport. They are not.
Last year saw the highest level of investment in British rail for 25 years, and this year's expenditure also represents a substantial increase. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) that the documents contain several interesting and novel ideas for extending the Underground and for light transit systems in different parts of London.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that many Islington people will be extremely angry at the road-building plans envisaged in the consultative documents in respect of the east London assessment study? They will be angry that the threat of destruction still hangs over the Parkland walk and over part of the Holloway road. They will be angry also at the so-called major junction improvements envisaged for Highbury corner and for the junction of Hornsea road with Holloway road. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the last thing that the people of Islington want is more roads and traffic? Instead, they want more money invested in better public transport to reduce the level of commuter motoring and the number of heavy goods vehicles flowing through the borough.

Mr. Parkinson: On a point of detail, the Parkland walk proposals have been abandoned, so there is no threat to Parkland walk.
We welcome comments and consultation. If the hon. Gentleman will examine the documents, he will discover that the part of London that he represents is the subject of public transport as well as road proposals. Many people

believe that it is time for the Government to grasp the nettle and deal with the problems around Archway and Holloway road. Many people also resent the fact that the planning process has been deliberately disrupted on a number of occasions to prevent important decisions from being taken.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: My right hon. Friend will be aware of how welcome is his strong commitment to investment in London Underground—and in particular in my constituency, in respect of the proposal to undertake a proper study of the Chelsea—Hackney line, which would greatly improve the Underground service to south-west London.
I regret that the western environmental improvement route is still included in the assessment studies, but that proposal is made more acceptable by the inclusion of a proposed new river crossing. Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is also vital that if the new road goes ahead there should be a strong and purposeful commitment on the part of the Department to encourage environmental improvements along its route, to minimise the effects of traffic noise, fumes and vibrations on the local residents?

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend. As he knows, there are opposing points of view to his own in respect of the new river crossing. People on the Wandsworth side of the river are not so enthusiastic about the prospect—in fact, they are very unenthusiastic about it and think that the road should link up with Wandsworth bridge. Nevertheless, I thank my hon. Friend for recognising that the studies represent a combination of road and public transport, and that the two together can make a real contribution to solving the present problem.

Mr. Chris Smith: While welcoming the abandonment of some of the initial major road-building proposals in the original east London assessment study, I wonder whether the Secretary of State accepts that there remain proposals in his own consultation exercise that will possibly involve road widening, bigger roads and the creation of new roads in my constituency, with associated destruction of constituents' homes? Is not the fundamental flaw in the Secretary of State's statement his imposition of an absolute limit on the ability of public transport of itself to solve London's traffic problems? Does he accept that my constituents want a real investment of resources in public transport, not new or bigger roads destroying their homes?

Mr. Parkinson: We have retained road-building schemes only where we believe that the benefits exceed the costs—the costs being human as well as financial. We expect those proposals to be hotly contested, and we want to hear the public's view of them before arriving at a decision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage his constituents to let us have their views ahead of 28 February so that we can arrive at a sensible decision based on the views expressed.
There is no possibility of public transport solving the whole of London's traffic problems. Many of the journeys made in London are not from the periphery to the centre but across London, and it is not possible for London Transport to carry that traffic. The Government accept, and my statement recognises, that the majority of


London's travellers will use public transport, but we must acknowledge that that job cannot be done without a better road system.

Mr. John Bowis: As three of the assessment studies converge on Battersea, may I, on behalf of its residents, give a triple welcome to my right hon. Friend's very sensible dismissal of the vast majority of the schemes that would have affected my constituents' houses? I note that his preference is for public transport backed up by sensible improvements to existing roads. Will he at least consider sympathetically the idea of disposing of the remaining road schemes, including the weir scheme, and putting them not into a filing cabinet from which they can be produced again, but into a dustbin from which they cannot? If the scheme is to go ahead at all, it should be put in a tunnel and left there.
My constituents greatly welcome the red routing scheme but look forward also to schemes for traffic calming, so that people can not only travel but co-exist with others who do.

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend has been an ardent advocate of red routes, along with two or three of my other colleagues. I hope that he is pleased that his advocacy has paid off.
As to the remaining road schemes, I realise that the proposal for cut and cover under Clapham common will provoke a substantial amount of comment. We look forward to seeing how the public react to those proposals —which would at the same time restore vast areas of the side of Clapham common to pedestrian ways. Therefore, those proposals could bring benefits as well as problems. We look forward to hearing the considered views of my hon. Friend and of others.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on grasping the problem so soon after coming to his present office. I hope that his announcement will dispel much of the misleading speculation about the routing of new roads, which was a cause for concern to many old people across the whole of London. I believe that the Department should produce a stategy for London, rather than a mark 2 GLC or something of the kind. I hope that while undertaking his consultations, my right hon. Friend will not forget that the Government must act to prevent the unco-ordinated digging of holes in the roads, which so often causes traffic jams.

Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, we have proposals for legislation which we hope to bring forward next year. That legislation will not only bring about better co-ordination between the utilities, but produce income from them for use of the lanes. We believe that the financial incentive for the job to be done promptly and quickly represents one of the best ways of removing the problem to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the M11 link road will considerably reduce traffic congestion in my constituency, although I share the regret expressed by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that more of it is not in tunnels?. Does my right hon. Friend realise that the building of this road has been delayed for 25 years—since I was in short trousers?
Will my right hon. Friend also comment on the level of compensation involved? Does he agree that if the level is

too low it may represent a false economy, whereas a higher level will prompt my constituents to clamour for the development to be speeded up?

Mr. Parkinson: I am not sure that the Treasury would ever allow any Secretary of State to have so much money that people clamoured to be allowed to sell their houses to him. I recognise, however, that the building of the link road has been delayed for a long time, and I want the consultation process to be completed as quickly as possible so that we can get on with the appropriate plans.

Sir William Shelton: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on his statement? Will he also accept that the arrival—after so many years—of an underground line to Streatham, and the reinforcement of the underground line to Balham, will come as the best Christmas present that my constituents could possibly have? They will be very grateful.
I shall wait to hear my constituents' views on the proposed relief road around St. Leonard's, and the proposals for Clapham at the junction of Cavendish road. I fear, however, that the Clapham scheme will not be acceptable, because the problem could be easily dealt with by means of a roundabout—as I have said time and again in the past two years.
I believe that the pedestrianisation of Streatham high road is a plus, but that the loss of houses is a minus. I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to what is said by my constituents when I have their answer.

Mr. Parkinson: Of course I will. My hon. Friend has been very active in promoting his and his constituents' views on our proposals, and I have no doubt that he will continue to do so during the consultation period. We look forward to hearing what he has to say.
I should make one thing clear. I am not giving anyone any Christmas presents. These are proposals, and they have some way to go before they become schemes—although I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that they constitute a major step in the right direction.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his eminently sensible approach to London's traffic problems. How soon does he expect the bulk of the red route schemes to be operative, and will the London boroughs now be able to keep the fines that will be levied?

Mr. Parkinson: As the House knows, my hon. Friend was the arch mover of the red route scheme, on which I congratulate him. It was the Adjournment debate that he initiated which first interested me in the subject.
We expect the trial stretch to be in action by next summer, for a period of about six months. The pace at which we can move after that will depend on the extent to which the boroughs co-operate, as they own about 80 of the 300 miles involved. We believe that they will be co-operative, and we shall start working with them tomorrow to make the scheme a reality. I cannot give my hon. Friend a more definite date, however.

Mr. Roger Sims: As one who has been particularly critical over the past 12 months of the way in which my right hon. Friend and his colleagues prolonged the uncertainty about the proposals, may I take this opportunity to thank him for the trouble to which he and his office have gone to ensure that all of us who will be


affected have been supplied with the reports, as quickly as possible? Clearly they will require a good deal of digestion, and, more to the point, our constituents will want to digest them too. To remove any possible doubt, however, will my right hon. Friend confirm that option 5—the additional motorway south of the south circular road—is also a dead duck?

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. Getting the studies published, and doing the work necessary to eliminate proposals that were unacceptable, has been an enormous task for the Department and our officials have worked tremendous hours to get the information out as quickly as possible to enable us to proceed with consultation.
I would not wish to be specific, but I am pretty certain that the answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): It is.

Mr. Parkinson: I am told that the answer is yes.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's judicious approach to these difficult issues. May I ask him to bear in mind that, in residential areas of Greater London, it is better to concentrate on improving existing roads and enforcing existing traffic regulations? Is he aware that at any one time only 400 traffic wardens are available for the whole of Greater London? If we are to enforce the regulations, is it not time we rectified that omission?

Mr. Parkinson: One of the objectives of our proposals is to relieve traffic wardens of some of their present duties, and to allow the boroughs to perform them. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) for not answering his earlier question. The boroughs will be able to keep the fees from parking meters that they install and monitor.
Our aim is to extend the duties of traffic wardens to give them more authority; they will be allowed to authorise removals and clamping. We believe that those added responsibilities will lead to more job satisfaction and hence —we hope—to better recruitment.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes): I thank my right hon. Friend for his careful and considered approach. May I also mention the refreshingly candid and helpful attitude of the Minister for Roads and Traffic, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins)? It makes a nice change.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the road options are options, not proposals? I hope that he did not intend to say the opposite earlier. This bears out the observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) that options are treated as proposals by the general public until a denial is issued. The term "option" causes a good many difficulties, and we must stress that these are not proposals as yet.
I welcome the extensions to the tube lines and light railway. May I encourage my right hon. Friend to put as many as possible of the lines underground, especially in environmentally sensitive areas? May I also point out that any widening of the south circular road on the scale that

may have been envisaged would be entirely unacceptable to my constituents, as it would take place right in the middle of my constituency?
My constituents would countenance a tunnel from Wandsworth to Chiswick only if it were fully underground, and did not come up in one of the green open spaces in the centre of my constituency. They would, however, welcome some of the proposals, so long as all of the tunnel is underground and the south circular road is de-trunked, as well as major environmental benefits being observed.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend. If I used the word "proposal" I apologise—I meant "option". These are options which are being placed before the public, and we look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's comments.
I note what my hon. Friend said about public transport. I know his views about the possibility of the tunnel's emerging at Rocks lane and linking up with it, and I have taken that point into account. I am sure that it will be made to us again in the course of the consultations.

Mr. John Maples: We in Lewisham welcome the end of the uncertainty that has surrounded the proposal for so long. The recommended option, however, involves the destruction of some 300 houses in the borough, and a considerable increase in the volume of traffic. We shall, of course, want to study the proposals in detail, but such a move is unlikely to prove acceptable to people living along or near the route. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the process of public consultation will be genuine, and that he will take local views into account when making his final decisions?

Mr. Parkinson: I can give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance on that point. I recognise that his constituency has the substantial problem that many houses are threatened there, although the number has been limited substantially by our proposals. The consultation will be genuine and we shall listen carefully to what my hon. Friend and his constituents say.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the anxiety expressed by my constituents in Dulwich, especially those who live along the south circular road by Dulwich common and of their fear that the volume of traffic and danger that exist at present would be increased if there were any road widening scheme. I urge my right hon. Friend to take note of the "do minimum" option, which would receive widespread support from my constituents and from myself.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The option that involves a tunnel under Dulwich common would have as a by-product the turning of part of what is now the south circular into a local road, thus relieving many residents of traffic, which is an enormous problem for them now. We shall listen to what my hon. Friend and his constituents say.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend consider the employment of community traffic wardens where the police and the existing traffic warden service cannot cope in keeping residential areas clear of cars in no-parking areas, which is the suggestion of one of my constituents? Will my right hon. Friend accept that although new measures to enforce proper parking will be welcomed, there is a tremendous shortage of parking


places in my constituency, especially during the day when many people who come to work in the area park their cars in residential areas, thus making it impossible for residents to park anywhere near their own homes? Can we have some proposals for an increase in parking places?

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The document proposes that the boroughs would take over the management of parking areas and would employ the wardens or contract out the service. They would do the job in the way that they chose. Part of the proposed duties of the new traffic director will be to promote a code of conduct for parking and we shall issue notes of guidance on parking provision. The new traffic director will, as part of his job, encourage the boroughs to adopt more uniform standards.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on rejecting the idea of driving a road down the Lea valley which would destroy Walthamstow marshes, an area of age-old marshland which is much loved by the people of Walthamstow. If the Chelsea-Hackney line is built with a branch for Chingford, I ask that Walthamstow marshes should not be used as an engineering depot or as a dumping ground for those works.

Mr. Parkinson: I note what my hon. Friend says and we shall take that into account when we consider the Chelsea-Hackney line.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: Further to the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), will the Secretary of State confirm that the options in the studies were tested against a fixed base and that in that base there was an assumption that the fares on public transport would increase by 46 per cent. in real terms by the year 2001, whereas motoring costs were assumed to increase by only 10 per cent. in real terms over the same period? Will he, therefore, retract his statement that road and rail were compared on an equal basis?
Is the Secretary of State aware that a recent Gallup survey of Londoners in five boroughs showed that 82 per cent. of respondents were in favour of a reduction in the use of cars in London because of their adverse effects on the environment? Will he, therefore, acknowledge that Londoners are likely to reject the road-building options in favour of public transport options and traffic restraint? Will he be prepared both to accept such a public judgment and to provide public money to support the public transport proposals?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the road-based options that are still recommended by his consultants have already been rejected by the London boroughs that would be affected, including the Tory-controlled borough of Wandsworth which recommends a 15 per cent. reduction of road traffic, a greater commitment to traffic-calming measures and a major investment in public transport?

Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and I shall write to her. I have been assured that the studies were conducted on what my officials told me this morning was a "comparable basis". I asked that specific question because it has been alleged that the assessment is always tilted in favour of roads and I wanted to be sure that the studies had been carried out on a comparable basis.
The Gallup survey detected a wish for a reduction in the number of cars by the electors in five boroughs. It was interesting that when a question was put about road pricing at the same time and when Londoners were asked whether they would be prepared to pay to see a reduction in the use of cars, the answer was a pretty firm no. People do not want cars, but they have no plans to get rid of their own. They want other people to stop using the roads.
I have already made it clear that all the proposals will have to earn their place in the public expenditure programme. We had a good outcome this year which is why we shall be spending £6 billion on public transport projects and £5·7 billion on the national road programme. We do not overestimate the attitude to roads and the part that roads may play in solving London's problems, but we do not underestimate the need to improve our road provision. We see an improvement in rail, underground, local transit systems, buses, which have not been mentioned today, and cars, with all of them playing their part in relieving London's congestion.

Consolidated Fund Bill

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Wednesday 20 December.
Hon. Members should submit their subjects to my Office not later than 10 pm on Monday 18 December. A list showing the subjects and times will be published later that day. Normally, the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours.
Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different hon. Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of hon. Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.
Moreover, I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 21 December, up to 10 hon. Members may raise, with Ministers, subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the results made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Points of Order

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a point of order first from the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take you back to column 1005 in yesterday's Hansard? The House and the country are used to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) making wild statements and having them corrected by the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not want to be accused this afternoon of being a stooge for him. However, I must draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the wild and unsubstantiated statements of the hon. Member for Dagenham. He stated that he took "the first opportunity" to notify me that he intended to raise a point of order yesterday.
That was a piece of paper placed on the Members' Board at 2.49 pm. I had left the House of Commons at 8.30 in the morning with my colleagues on the Select Committee on the Environment to visit a sewage works in Brighton and we were not able to return to the House until after 6 o'clock. The hon. Member for Dagenham took little, if any, opportunity to contact me. He did not ring my office and he showed no courtesy whatever. The hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We know what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said. Will the hon. Member for Langbaurgh please raise his point of order with me? What is it?

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman said that I had withdrawn my question. You know, Mr. Speaker, because you have now checked, that I did not withdraw my question. I have the answer here, so I could not have withdrawn my question.
Further, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) also misled the House. I do not believe that he did it on purpose. He suggested that local authorities do not
collect information on the basis of the colour or the ethnic origin of citizens."—[Official Report, 13 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 1006.]
If they did not do so, they would not be able to tell central Government how to allocate money for the rate support grant. They load it in favour of authorities with a large number of ethnic people. As my constituency does not do so, we lose millions of pounds as a consequence. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will now rule that my question was in order.

Mr. Speaker: I certainly will deal with the hon. Member's point of order. I promised yesterday that I would reflect further upon this matter. I remain of the view that the Table Office was correct in accepting the question tabled by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). As he has said, in the calculation of the present rate support grant and the forthcoming revenue support grant, among other things, account is taken of the social index based on people or households the heads of which are first-generation immigrants from the new Commonwealth or from Pakistan. I can confirm therefore that there was a correct basis for his question.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of the information that we have received from the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr.

Holt), one thing is certain, and that is that yesterday he was down in the political gutter, but we did not know that he came out covered in sludge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] His question was cheap. It was offensive to many people.

Mr. Speaker: It was in order.

Mr. Skinner: I did not say it was not. Obviously some people like it. I cannot say that I do. [Interruption.] My point of order is about something entirely different. That was just in passing—en passant.
Earlier, during business questions, several Labour Members were not called. I am not talking about myself —I can carry it—but some of my hon. Friends were not able to be here. I can be here, and I can represent them as a shop steward or whatever. Those hon. Members were not called at business questions. I want to get one or two things straight. We—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Getting one or two things straight is taking time from an important debate. The trouble with acting as shop steward on behalf of hon. Members is that it takes time from other hon. Members who have a legitimate interest in two important debates. The hon. Member must put his question briefly to me, and if it is a matter of order for me I will endeavour to deal with it.

Mr. Skinner: Well, the point is that, invariably at business questions, if you decide to cut questions short because of a statement or for any other reason, the chances are that it will almost certainly be Labour people who are kept out. However, today there was a statement to follow, which took an hour. About 20 or 30 Tories and a few Labour people stood up. You adopted a different practice. You allowed every Tory Member to be called. When you get more Tory MPs standing up, there is a tendency for them to be called. When you get more Labour people standing up at business questions—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: Now that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had enough of this. The hon. Gentleman has been the chairman of a different body. He knows the obligation to be even-handed in the chair. The whole House knows that I am very reluctant to curtail business questions because I am well aware that it is the one opportunity in a week for hon. Members who may not previously have been called to put a question to the Leader of the House. However, I must have regard, as the hon. Gentleman in his other capacity must equally have regard, for other business before the House. Since on Wednesday there will be an opportunity on the Christmas Adjournment motion to raise these matters, I thought it fair today to have regard for other hon. Members who have indicated their wish to take part in the important fisheries debate and the debate on the other items on the Order Paper.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, during Prime Minister's Question Time, I asked a question which, upon reflection, you decided was not in order. I fully accept that you have difficult decisions to take on questions that fall into that grey area. You and your predecessors have had to say to an hon. Member that his question might not be in order. Although the last word or two of my question might be construed by one or two hon.


Members to be party political, the bulk of my question was directed to the Prime Minister to elicit her view on democracy gaining ground in eastern Europe. I should have thought that the country and the House would have wanted to hear her views on that development. I recognise that you have a duty to protect—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman had left it at that, he would have been perfectly in order, but he went on to ask for the Prime Minister's views about what was going on in the constituency of Birkenhead.

Mr. Brown: I never mentioned that word.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had an opportunity of looking at the Hansard report. The hon. Gentleman can do that tomorrow. I think that he will find that what I am saying is correct.

Mr. Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Banks.

Mr. Banks: I refer to the point of order that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is well known that you are fair and impartial in the way that you apply the rules of the House, but, just in case you make an error, you have someone who reminds you who has asked a question and when. Will you advise the House on whether you think that it is courteous for hon. Members on both sides who come in here, perhaps not as often as they should, ask a question, particularly during business questions, and disappear immediately afterwards? Do you agree that that is discourteous to the House and to you?

Mr. Speaker: I have absolutely no hesitation in agreeing with what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can inform the House that if, for example, any hon. Member raised the victimisation of and attack on the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) following his courageous stand against the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister would not be able to answer that question because it is not within her responsibility, but she would be able to take part in a debate about such victimisation?

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical matter.

Brogdale Fruit Station

Mr. Roger Moate: I beg to seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement today of the closure of the Brogdale fruit station and the future of the national fruit collection.
This is the first possible moment to bring this matter to the House, as the Government's decision was announced by written answer at only 3.30 pm today. The future of the national fruit collection is a specific matter and it is of the utmost importance to the House and to the nation. Indeed, it is of international importance. The reason it is so important is that the fruit growing at Brogdale forms the largest collection of temperate fruits in the world and it is of international renown. There are more than 2,000 varieties of applies there, including varieties dating back to mediaeval and Roman times. His Royal Highness Prince Charles's recent recognition of the importance of this collection has reinforced everybody's determination that it should be retained and encouraged.
Today's decision by the Government to close Brogdale and to try to re-propagate at another site is bad and precipitate, and it contradicts assurances given in the House of Commons. On 6 April this year, the Leader of the House, answering at Prime Minister's Question Time —she was absent at the time—gave an assurance on the Floor of the House that, as the local Member, I would be included in the consultation process. My contacts with the Government on this matter have been a travesty of consultation. It adds to the urgent case that I am making for a debate but it gives me no pleasure to say that, after nearly 20 years in this House, I have never been treated as badly as I have on this issue, whether by Labour Ministers or Conservative Ministers.
Further evidence of why a debate is now urgent and appropriate is a letter dated 11 December, in reply to my letter dated 22 October, in which the Minister states that the Ministry was still in discussion with other interested parties, including my local authority, Swale borough council. Like many people, including experts, that council has expended a great amount of time and effort on producing proposals for a new national fruit centre, which would be locally funded.
However, all that has been swept aside because, instead of still being in discussion, at 3.30 this afternoon the Government announced their decision to embark on this foolish and costly exercise of moving the collection. That will take between five and eight years, involve some risk and unknown costs and appears to us to be a totally unnecessary and bad exercise—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has used up his time.

Mr. Moate: My point is simply this, Mr. Speaker. It is not too late to stop this foolish decision if the House of Commons is given an opportunity for debate—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement today of the closure of the Brogdale fruit station and the future of the national fruit collection".


As the House knows, under Standing Order. No. 20 I have to announce my decision without giving my reasons to the House. I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that his application does not fall within the requirements of the order and I cannot submit his application to the House. However, he may have other opportunities for raising the matter next week.

BILL PRESENTED

AVIATION AND MARITIME SECURITY BILL

Mr. Secretary Parkinson, supported by Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Waddington, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Wakeham, and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, presented a Bill to give effect to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation which supplements the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation; to make further provision with respect to aviation security and civil aviation; to give effect to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf which supplements that Convention; to make other provision for the protection of ships and harbour areas against acts of violence; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

European Community (Fisheries)

[Relevant document: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's un-numbered explanatory memorandum of 13 December 1989 on the Fisheries Agreement between the European Community and Greenland.]

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his hon. Friends.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum of 12th December 1989 and Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 13th December 1989 on Total Allowable Catches and Quotas for 1990, its un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 13th December 1989 on the Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement between the Community and Norway for 1990, European Community Document No. 9888/89 on fishery guide prices, and of the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1990 consistent with the requirement for conservation of the fishing stock.
I must first record the fact that the late arrival of these proposals has been most inconvenient for the House and Ministers. The House as a whole must record its dissatisfaction at the fact that once again, for the purposes of their negotiations, the Norwegians have pressed the arguments nearer and nearer to Christmas so that it is difficult for this House properly to consider these important matters. I am grateful to the authorities of the House, to the Select Committee on European Legislation and to spokesmen of all parties for their understanding, but I still believe that it is more difficult for us to have a proper debate because of the way in which the negotiations are carried on.
Indeed, it is made worse when we are faced with the conclusions of those negotiations with Norway. The Commission will find it extremely difficult to explain to Ministers how, at a time when we have reduced the total allowable catches offered to the fishermen of the Community below—as far as we can find out—the recommendations of the scientists, it has found it possible to do a deal with Norway which increases the proportion of the fish available to Norwegian fishermen.
Although it is difficult to second-guess people who have been carrying out negotiations, it is also difficult to see how the Commission can substantiate the claim that this is a proper outcome to the negotiations with Norway, although in these negotiations the Norwegians have considerable cards in their hands and start from a strong position. I do not under-estimate the negotiators' difficulties, but in trying to explain to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish fishermen that they will have to accept considerable reductions in their fishing opportunities, it will not be possible to explain why, at the same time, the Norwegians will have proportionately greater opportunities; although we know that the Norwegians have severe problems in the fisheries that they control in their northern waters.
We are discussing documents that are not complete, but which are based upon the best evidence that we have. I thank the House for its forbearance.
It is right that we should start by pointing to the fact that important communities in the United Kingdom


depend upon fishing. For them, fishing is not only a matter of livelihood and support for the whole economy of their community: it is also of great emotional importance because that is why their community is there. One thing that makes this an issue on which many hon. Members of different parties can coalesce is our recognition that those communities, which are represented by hon. Members of all parties, have a particular call upon us. The real problem is that they are communities of people who hunt for a natural product and whose future depends upon its availability and their opportunity to catch. If such an industry finds that, from year to year, that availability falls, it is bound to be caused considerable worry about the future. None of us should under-estimate what that means.
It is perfectly possible to point to the fact that in most cases the income from those opportunities has increased over the past 10 years. There is no doubt that it has increased in both money and real terms. I should not wish anybody to think that I do not recognise that, apart from in the present year, in those terms the fishing industry has done better year on year. However, the psychology and the fear of a reducing opportunity are not cancelled out by the experience of receiving a higher price for the smaller amount of fish that can be caught.
None of us must under-estimate the position in those fishing communities, which has been made worse by the fact that, in 1989, for the first time for some years, the volume of catches, which has reduced by 11 per cent., has not been offset by an increase in prices, which have risen by only 9 per cent. in total. Therefore, to some extent we have a reversal of the continuing trends and an increase in the fear and concern in those communities.
Last year the fishing communities saw significant cuts in their North sea cod and haddock quotas. Now they face another year of cuts and are beginning to feel that the benefits promised are always for tomorrow, never for today. Therefore, we must consider what we can do in the context of the scientific advice with which we are presented.
We have a real problem here. This industry is not like any other, because its catching opportunities depend upon the fish that are available. What we do today will have enormous effects upon what we do tomorrow. One cannot distinguish between the demand for conservation at sea and the demand for terrestrial conservation. I should find it extremely difficult to demand that the Brazilians are restrained in their treatment of their rain forests, while insisting that our fishermen should have the right to fish as many fish as they like, irrespective of the effect on the stock —[Interruption.] The problems that we face—I know that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) agrees with me on this—are, first, that the statements by the scientists are extremely worrying this year. Secondly, in most stocks we do not seem to have benefited from the conservation measures that we have now had for the past eight years. Thirdly, the Commission is asking us to take even lower figures than those that are strictly necessary according to scientific judgments.
We must face three matters clearly. First, the position with regard to stocks is serious, particularly in the North sea. There is no doubt about that. Even those who would like to be as flexible as possible in interpreting the scientific advice must accept that fact. Therefore, I could not countenance proposing figures at the negotiations which are outwith the scientific advice. There is no other firm base on which to stand. If I offer anecdotal evidence from

the experience of Scottish, Welsh, Irish or English fishermen, I shall only be countered by similar disadvantageous anecdotal evidence from the Dutch, Germans and Danes with whom we negotiate. We must have a serious agreed base for discussion. The best scientific advice is the only base upon which anyone concerned with conservation can stand.
Secondly, why is it that, despite all the conservation measures, there has been no upturn in stocks in many areas? As Minister responsible for fishing, I have expounded the reason for that for some years in fishing negotiations. While the Community accepted a total allowable catch in line with what the scientists suggest, Community fishermen illegally overfished as much again. Only recently have we begun to bring such overfishing under control. That was done by the international police force pioneered by Britain and supported by both Conservative and Opposition Members, who felt that it was a proper area of Community competence.
Overfishing does not prove that TACs and quotas have failed. Policing is only just beginning to overcome a willingness to cheat throughout the Community. We need to make sure not only that TACs and quotas work but that they are complemented by other conservation measures to make them more effective. It is self-evident that a TAC and quota system which ensures that large numbers of immature fish are cast out in order to meet the demands of the quota is not proper conservation. That is why I honour and recognise the suggestions put forward by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. I hope that we can encourage them to go further and to accept considerable changes.
We must face the fact that conservation measures that work mean significant changes in fishing techniques. They cannot be entirely comfortable, and hurt no one. If that was possible, we should have agreed such measures a long time ago. Hon. Members who travel around their constituencies telling fishermen that, if they accept a certain package of conservation measures, they need not worry, do considerable damage to the future of the fishing industry. Conservation is a tough thing to achieve, particularly in circumstances where stocks have fallen so low.
It is wrong to suggest that conservation measures remove the need for TACs and quotas. We need both. People who suggest otherwise are selling the next generation, indeed the fishermen of the next few years, down the drain for current political advantage. I hope that those concerned with the future of fishing will care for its future not just in this year and the next but in the next 10, 15 or 20 years.

Mr. Alex Salmond: If the emphasis on fisheries and conservation is to move towards technical measures—which some of us have supported for many years—is the Minister maintaining that TACs, which he says have failed during the past eight years, must be kept at the same low level, and not abolished? Is he saying that quotas must be held at an insupportably low level if new conservation policies are implemented?

Mr. Gummer: I am pleased with that intervention. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been keen on conservation measures for some years. If that is so, I am surprised that those conservation measures were not mentioned in the Scottish National party manifesto for the last election. I am pleased that he has corrected the


impression that it gave. I have not only believed in them but fought for them year in, year out, without the support of many of the fishermen who are now prepared to ask for them.
When I ask for absolute straightness with fishermen, I mean that we must tell them that TACs cannot be increased merely because we hope that conservation measures will have effect. TACs can be increased only when the conservation measures will have had effect. Otherwise, we shall be in exactly the same position as when we had to stop all herring fishing, and nearly destroyed that industry. I shall not be the Minister who does that. I am determined to fight for fishermen and the future of fishing, which means being prepared now to say that conservation measures must march hand in hand with TACs and quotas. The moment that we see that the measures are working, we can increase TACs and improve quotas.

Mr. John Townend: rose—

Mr. John Home Robertson: rose—

Mr. Gummer: This is a short debate. I shall give way only twice more.

Mr. Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation on the east cost is disastrous? The quota system has failed and the time for prevarication is over. For several years, my fishermen have asked for considerably larger mesh sizes, a ban on industrial fishing, larger landing sizes and the closure of breeding and spawning grounds in a large part of the area. If that action is not taken in the next 12 months, the industry will die.

Mr. Gummer: I am sympathetic with much of what my hon. Friend says and has said in the past. I was about to announce not only that we have already put to the Commission a series of proposals to improve conservation, but that I have asked for a major package of proposals to be prepared for the next stage in pressing them for conservation. One of our problems is that we constantly lead in our demands for conservation measures. So far, we have not attracted sufficient support from some sections of the industry or, more importantly in terms of voting, from our colleagues in the European Community.
There is one piece of relatively good news to announce to the House today. The case that we have pursued in the European Court of Justice on Spanish quota hoppers appears to have been decided. I say that it appears to have been decided because I have received merely the report of a judgment rather than a full judgment. It gives grounds for cautious optimism. Although we failed in our contention that fishermen who claim part of the British quota should be resident in this country, we gained almost every other point. That will enable us to do a good deal more than some had feared about non-British fishermen who have their own quota in some other country taking fish on the British quota. That was unacceptable. At a time when TACs are as tight as they are, it is an affront to British fishermen if their small quota is partly taken by people who already have a quota which has been negotiated over many years and is meant to reflect their historic fishing rights. It does not mean that they can add to their quota by pinching the quota of others. That is why

we have taken such a strong line. I am sorry that we have not won everything, but we have won a sufficient amount at least to make a significant effect on that.

Mr. David Harris: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gummer: I must tell my hon. Friend that I should not give way. I said that I would give way once more, but I should reserve that for a Member of the official Opposition because then I shall have shared out interventions fairly well. That is a quota operation which I think is right.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I shall attend the Council on Sunday night and Monday morning and the argument will probably proceed through Monday, Tuesday and perhaps Wednesday. Clearly, major issues are involved.
I am pleased to announce that the Commission has recognised the need to retain the security which comes from the common fisheries policy. That was of crucial concern to British fishermen north and south of the border. Relative stability is a crucial issue for Britain. We fought hard and won a reasonable deal from the common fisheries policy, and we have accepted the way in which it shares out fish. But we cannot have some new mechanism for sharing out any other fish stocks which are found. That would always be to our disadvantage. Therefore, we welcome the Commission's intention to deal with the Greenland fish as we believe the common fisheries policy dictates—according to relative stability—thus ensuring that we have our fair and proper share of that fish.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister assure the House that, over the weekend and on Monday, he will resist Spanish demands for a share of the west coast of Scotland cod allocation, given that Spanish fishing firms have no history whatever of fishing in those waters?

Mr. Gummer: I give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that I have no intention of allowing the present sharing system of the common fisheries policy to be changed. I shall oppose resolutely any suggestion, either now or at an interim date when a review is possible, to change the way in which we treat various parts of the waters of the Community. I can give the hon. Gentleman the further assurance that we have sought allies in that and believe ourselves to be well supported by our neighbours, who also feel that this hard-fought share should not be upset by those who have no historic claim on our waters and who have sought to take from us quota which is rightly ours and certainly not theirs.
I am determined to fight for the highest possible TACs consonant with scientific advice. I hope that the whole House will support me when I say that it would be wrong for a country—I say a country, not a Government—committed to conservation to ignore the scientific advice and demand more fish than is safe for next year and the year after. I am adamant that we shall not move from that scientific advice. We should seek to give ourselves as much fish as possible, consonant with that advice.
Therefore, I shall oppose strongly the Commission's proposals which give less fish than scientists have suggested it is possible for us to take. When we are squeezed as hard as we are, it is unacceptable to suggest that we should squeeze still further. Because we have a


high proportion of many of these stocks for historic reasons and because of our negotiating successes, it means that, if our allocation is pushed below what the scientists demand, our suffering is proportionately greater.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: I promised not to give way again because it was necessary to use up as little time as possible. I have given way once to the Government side, once to the official Opposition and once to the non-official Opposition. I shall not be driven to divide blue whiting from whiting. There is a grey problem in that. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is absurd."] It is extremely difficult to give way in the circumstances, but if no hon. Member takes it as a precedent, within the scientific advice I give way.

Mr. Wallace: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. May I assure him that we on these Benches support what he has just said about not going beyond what scientific advice allows? Can he say whether he will seek compensatory increases in precautionary TACs not dependent on scientific advice to make up for the limited TACs for haddock and cod?

Mr. Gummer: That was a helpful and useful extension of the debate, and I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. The answer is that that depends on the precautionary TACs. Where there is a relatively widespread view that a precautionary TAC is not unreasonable, it would be wrong to change it. Others seem to be shots in the dark without much basis, so they might be varied in either direction without any real knowledge.
Where it would be safe to do so, I shall seek the best possible deal. I am not sure whether I would want to do that in recompense for a tough TAC somewhere else. I would do so because I believed that we must provide the maximum possible fishing opportunity which is proper for a Government and an Opposition who are committed to conservation.
I have already said that the first main issue that we shall face is relative stability. It seems that the Commission is committed to that, but we shall have to fight hard to keep it. The second is the fight for TACs at the highest possible level consonant with our conservation aims. The third relates to the Hague preference. I shall seek to invoke the Hague preference because TACs have fallen so low and the quotas that depend on them will cause real hardship in several fishing communities. Hon. Members can rest assured that I shall fight for that as hard as possible, but they must know the arithmetic and that we have a limited number of friends on that. Nevertheless, I believe that we must fight and that it is right to do everything possible to gain that.
The next priority concerns western mackerel. We have a problem which it would be wrong to ignore. Our rightful insistence on relative stability means that we cannot easily explain why it is necessary to take into account the fact that shoals of fish move. Although the relative stability is based on lines drawn on a map of the sea, it may be that the lines related to movements of fish, which have since changed.
Therefore, it has always been our view that, by relative stability, we mean stability in the stocks as they were at the time. If they have moved to some extent, it is not unreasonable marginally to change the way in which those

lines are drawn. That is why we put the western mackerel issue before the Council and why we successfully obtained some help last year. Whether we can obtain the same amount, or any, this time will depend on some tough negotiations.
We want to see major changes in the proposals put to us by the Commission. TACs and quotas are not enough, but we do not accept that we can do without them. Further conservation measures will be essential if we are to begin to see the day dawn in which the stocks begin to grow not just occasionally, but much more widely. There must also be major changes if the Commission's commitment to conservation is to be believed and it is not to be suspected of seeking to achieve other aims by the negotiations carried out.
Therefore, the House will wish me to be able to say to the Commission and my colleagues in the European Community during the discussions and debates of the next few days that the House recognises the difficulties placed on us by the shortage of fish, but demands that the maximum opportunities must be provided for fishermen of the Community, and therefore for the fishermen of these islands. We shall fight to do that and shall need the wholehearted support of the House if we are to have some chance of obtaining an answer which can be accepted by today's fishermen and protects the future livelihoods of tomorrow's fishermen.

Dr. David Clark: I agree with much of what the Minister said. He seems to realise that Britain's fishing communities face a crisis. If the proposals are carried out they will cause immense hardship, mass unemployment and destroy many fishing communities. The purpose of this take note debate is for the Minister to listen to the views of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House. I am sure that he will get the message that he must go and fight for the fishing communities, fishermen and fishing generally. He has our support on that.
I also share the Minister's view—I think that I speak for the House—that it is most unsatisfactory, although not of his making, that the EC has not been able even to consult the individual legislatures about quota proposals until this late date. It will not be until the middle of next week—12 days before they become operative—that the Community's fishermen know the quota for the coming year. That is unsatisfactory and I hope the Government will take the opportunity to press for it to be changed. There are difficulties with the Norwegians, but we must fight to change that unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I suspect that most of this debate will centre on the North sea because the species most at threat live in that vicinity. But other seas around us are equally affected. The quota reductions of sole and whiting in the Irish sea will have a major effect on the western part of Britain. It is essential that we retain as high a proportion as possible of the Channel cod available, and I hope that the Minister will press for that.
We must turn our eyes from our near coasts to the far seas and to the lack of access to distant waters. The north Norway quota is down this year by 47 per cent.—75 per cent. less than it was two years ago. I am advised that this


means that it is only viable for two of our 15 vessels available to work that sector. That is ridiculous and unacceptable.
I heard what the Minister said about Greenland. As he knows, under the 1983 agreement, the allocation for Greenland waters was based on historic fishing. It is important for the Minister to reinforce that point, on which we have allies in the EC. I hope that he will not give way one inch on those waters.
The main and most contentious issue is the North sea. The House knows that the proposals agreed between the Norwegians and the EC led to a massive reduction in quotas of about three of the principal stocks. Haddock is down by 39 per cent.—taking into account the swaps—cod is down by 24 per cent. and saithe by 30 per cent. Those figures need examination. I agree with the Minister that we should press for the highest sustainable scientific figures. The figures that I gave were reached in negotiations with the Norwegians. The European Commissioners were not effective in those negotiations and the results have been absolutely disastrous. For whatever reason—it is beyond me—the Commissioners do not appear to have played any of their bargaining cards. I hope that the Minister will press the Commission on that.
Why have we not raised the herring issue? We have a guarantee—a zonal attachment—of 25 per cent. Why have we not received that? Why has not the Commisson played the mackerel card? What about the north Norway access linked to the Greenland shrimp? If the Minister goes to Europe and argues these points, he will have the support of the House.
We are talking about uncharted waters, but we should seriously consider asking the Commission to go back to Norway and, even at this 11th hour, start renegotiating with it, even if that means that we operate temporarily on limited quotas on a monthly basis in the early new year. I hope that the Minister will take that on board because we have wasted all our bargaining chips in the negotiations.
There is also agreement that there is a problem with declining fish stock in the North sea. We may disagree about the figures, but we all agree that the scientists have discovered this problem. I took the trouble to familiarise myself with the way in which the scientists work and I was staggered by the quality and intensity of their research. I understand that they measured that 160,000 haddock were landed at Aberdeen alone last year. They have such figures going back to 1960. They cannot explain why there is such a variation of spawning stock, but it exists and this year it is particularly critical.
The scientists say that there is a problem with the declining fish stocks. I represent a fishing constituency and my fishermen have been telling me anecdotally for a couple of years that they cannot find fish. I noticed reports in the Sunday papers about Bridlington fishermen spending a full day at sea and returning with two cases of fish. We all agree that there is a problem and a need for radical reassessment.
I agree with much of what the Minister said about conservation and I am pleased that he said it because it widens our approach. In the past, many people in Europe have adopted what is commonly known as the one-club approach—we are familiar with it from the Government's handling of the economy. However, I shall try to be less

contentious. We have relied too much on TACs and quotas. Of course, they are necessary but we need other measures, too.
I talk to fishermen in my constituency and I know from my experience that there is horrific pollution in the North sea. We have been dumping far too much industrial waste there and it is having an effect on the fish. I get complaints from my fishermen about fish that are obviously suffering from the effects of pollution, and we have many reports of fishermen on the east and south coasts suffering from dermatitis.
In a recent parliamentary answer to me the Minister gave what I thought was some reassurance. He will know that at the ministerial meeting held in London on 24 and 25 November the signatories to the Oslo convention agreed that they would phase out by 31 December 1989 the dumping of industrial waste in the North sea. However, they said that an exception would be
inert materials of natural origin or other materials which can be shown in the competent international organisations to cause no harm in the marine environment".
In his answer the Minister said that he hoped that within two years he could phase out industrial waste licences and that we could stop dumping toxic industrial waste in the North sea. I hope that the Minister is quite specific about that and will stick to what he said. I see that he nods his assent. We must do all that we can to stop the dumping of any industrial waste except the most inert material in the North sea.
The other issue affecting the depletion of stocks is research. It is incumbent on us to maximise the use of a declining catch and we should aim to add value to our fishing industry when we can. We tend to speak about fishermen but we all know that they provide a livelihood for fish processors and many other people employed in associated industries. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Minister persists in his obsession about making massive cuts at Torry fishing research station in Aberdeen, which is probably the premier fishing research station in Europe. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will have second thoughts about that because it is crazy to cut the budget by one third and to axe 18 vital schemes. I visited that station, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), and I have heard about schemes which seek to maximise the use of fish and add to their value. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that such work is in the public interest.
Fishermen increasingly talk to me about conservation. The vice-president of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, Derek Heselton, lives in my constituency and is a good friend of mine. He told me at the weekend that his ambition is to see his son follow him into the industry. He recognises that if there are no fish there will be no future for his son and the next generation of fishermen. Many people are in that position and they recognise the problem. I compliment the fishermen in the north-east of England on their voluntary ban on twin rigs for prawn trawlers. That is a step in the right direction.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the voluntary conservation efforts of fishermen in the north-east of England. He will be aware that in managing and working to their quota specifically and carefully, they were in the end penalised because fishermen in other areas had gone


beyond their allocation. That meant that fishermen in the north-east of England were denied the right to fish the quota that had been allocated to them.

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that that matter has been brought to my attention. I do not wish to trespass into area disputes at this time because I know that many hon. Members want to participate in the debate.
I urge the Minister to look more closely at prawn fishing. Does he agree that there should be TACs for prawns? Such a step would be supported by fishermen in the west of Scotland and the north-east of England. Prawn fishermen face the danger of a knock-on effect; as fishermen are driven out of other grounds, they may enter prawn grounds.
Not only fishermen in the north-east of England are affected. We have had a report from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation containing a whole package of conservation measures to which the Department recently published its response. I hope that the Minister will press our case very hard when he addresses the Fisheries Council. I think that he hinted at that, and I hope that he will take encouragement from our support.
We have to take many radical measures on conservation and must face the prospect of bigger mesh sizes and extension pieces. We may even have to face the issue of discards. We talk about difficult negotiations with the Norwegians, but they do not have our problems with discards. Discards count against quotas. It may be unpalatable, but the Norwegians and the Canadians do it and we do it north of 62 deg. latitude. There is no reason why we should not consider that as part and parcel of conservation. We should think seriously about landing round cod and round haddock because landing them is not the best way to maximise the value of our fishing industry.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry published a report about 10 years ago on the British fishery industry, it drew attention to the disruption of quotas by discards and said that we were not getting a true record. Ten years have gone by and that warning has not been heeded.

Dr. Clark: Once again the hon. Gentleman seems to have been ahead of his time. I am glad that he agrees with me on that matter. Another issue that we might have to face is industrial fishing.
My final point relates to a fundamental disagreement between the Opposition and the Government. I talked about a one-club approach, but perhaps that was not the best analogy. We might say that we are trying to solve the problem while firing on three cylinders when we should be firing on all four. For some reason the Minister refuses to countenance one of the best weapons in his armoury and I suspect that that is because it costs money. It is the weapon of decommissioning. The Minister and the House know that by 1992 we have to reduce our capacity by 22 per cent. Yet the industry grew by 16 per cent. last year. That is the enormity of our task in the next two years. The sooner the Minister comes to the House with proposals for a proper decommissioning scheme, the better. I understand the Minister's reluctance, because he was responsible for the last scheme, and had his knuckles rapped by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office for it. But a new scheme need not have the same weaknesses.
I hope that the Minister will come to the House with such proposals, because the only way that we can reduce the number of vessels—it may have to be by up to 400 vessels—is by having a proper decommissioning scheme. I hope that when the scheme is introduced, because it will have to be introduced, payments will go to the employees working in the industry as well as to skippers and owners.
The facts are there, and we all understand the seriousness of the problem. The Minister is listening to the voice of the House, and I hope that he will hear the message that he has to fight for the British fishing industry, which is in a state of crisis. The industry knows it, and we know it. The time has come for us to take some bold steps. I suspect that the key is decommissioning. That is the one thing that the Minister has not argued for.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Now that we are well into the season of good will to all men and women, I urge right hon. and hon. Members to demonstrate that good will by making short speeches. Many hon. Members wish to be called in the debate.

Mr. Robert Hicks: As a preface to my remarks, I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister and the comments of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. D. Clark), about the timing of the publication of the draft proposals in relation to the Fisheries Council meeting and the commencement of the new fishing year. We face the same problem every year and, inevitably, it is raised in the House. Unfortunately, very little has been done about it in the past, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will be more successful on this occasion. I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, and I know that we have only just received the European Commission's draft proposals. That makes it difficult for us to undertake our function and responsibilities to the House.
I appreciate the fundamental problems facing United Kingdom Ministers. As my right hon. Friend said, fish stocks are declining, we have a surplus catch capacity and we have to deal with over-fishing in some areas. As a consequence, we have to have restraints if we are to maintain effective conservation measures and safeguard the viability of our fishing industry.
I wish to make three points about the effects of the draft proposals, if they are implemented, on the south-west of England because fishing is an important component of our regional economy. First, there is a proposal that the total allowable Channel cod catch should be reduced, and that will be reflected in the United Kingdom quota. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the background to the situation carefully, as many hon. Members believe that it is essential that we retain at least the figures that we had in 1989.
I am not trying to contradict the scientific advice that we have received, but the Commission has suggested that the cod TAC should be reduced to 21,500 tonnes. I hope that the Minister will defend our position robustly and ensure that the United Kingdom quota is upheld. Closer examination of the scientific evidence shows that it is variable and I hope that the Minister will argue in favour


of the higher of the parameters rather than accept the Commission's proposals. The least that my right hon. Friend can do when he responds this evening is to give the House a commitment, at this preliminary stage, that when there is a variation in the scientific evidence we will argue for the higher parameter, although the Commission has suggested a lower figure.
We expect that there will be a reduction in the TACs in the Channel for plaice and sole. On paper they may not seem to be of major proportions, but over the years the figures have been constantly reduced, so the overall situation is becoming worse. I hope that there will not be a need for any alteration in the figures for the south-west's mackerel catch. We have enjoyed stability in that area in recent years, and I hope that that will continue.
My second point is that we need greater flexibility in the application of quotas, and I do not think that any other hon. Member has touched upon that this evening. In the south-west there was considerable evidence that the circumstances had changed compared with this time last year when the TACs and quotas were negotiated. It seems that a major renegotiation of TACs and quotas was required so that we could achieve a modest increase halfway through the last fishing year in the cod quota that the south-west is allowed, and there is ample scientific evidence and local knowledge to support that.
Due to the shortage of time, I shall not spell out the reasons why we should reconsider conservation measures as a total package, but it is no good singling out one or two specific aspects each year. We must consider increasing mesh sizes. The present situation is ludicrous, as many small fish are caught and subsequently killed. Small fish not only represent future fish stocks, and the viability of the industry, but the future livelihood of fishermen. I hope that the Minister will include that in the package of conservation measures that eventually emerges.
Time prevents me from mentioning in any detail any other equally significant subjects—for example, licensing smaller vessels and the need for fleet reductions. That requires a financially attractive and effective decommissioning scheme, as the hon. Member for South Shields suggested.
In conclusion, I emphasise that the fishing industry is of great importance to the regional economy of Devon and Cornwall. Looe is the principal fishing port in my constituency, and it now supports more than 50 fishing vessels, a significant increase since 1979. In the past two years alone, £1 million has been invested in landing facilities, introducing a fish market and a packaging scheme. Larger sums have been invested in our fishing vessels. I want that momentum to be maintained. We look to my right hon. Friend the Minister to safeguard our interests in Brussels during the forthcoming negotiations.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I frequently pursue a slightly different tack from other hon. Members, and I do not apologise for doing so again today. The reason is that I have the pleasure to represent a constituency with special and distinctive problems.
There is not just one crisis in the fishing industry in the United Kingdom because there is not just one fishing

industry. Fishing differs radically between England and Scotland, and within Scotland from east to west coast. There are many dimensions to the industry.
I wish to emphasise the special nature of the difficulties that confront fishermen in my constituency and on the west coast of Scotland as a whole. It is a fragile area. In social and economic terms, its communities live a fragile existence. Time does not permit me to dwell on that, but I hope that it is obvious to the House.
We are not over capacity in the Western Isles, at least as regards our main fishing effort, which is directed towards prawns. We do not have the same problems and constraints as other sectors of the Scottish industry have had for the past decade. Indeed, our fleet has diminished during the past decade. The reduction has been among larger boats.
Another example of the special nature of fishing in the Western Isles is our attitude to total allowable catches. There are many criticisms of TACs. They can be only one of the tools used for conservation and to achieve sustainable stocks. Many criticise the Government for underestimating the amount of fish in the sea, but we tend to fear that they have overestimated the amount in our area, particularly the amount of prawns in the Minch. Although we believe that there is a possibility that TACs are too high in the Minch area, I shall make no final judgment about that, but merely observe that it shows our different attitude. One fear is that so much scientific research has gone into the North sea, and latterly the sand-eel controversy, that not enough has gone into the west coast fisheries to discover the true stocks of prawns so that we might establish a sustainable yield.
I emphasise that we are dealing with a distinctive style of fishing but, despite our specialness, we are constantly caught up in the general crisis that affects the national fleet. For example, some years ago, the European Commission, recognising the fragility of the west coast area, decided to award it a higher percentage grant than was available in other parts of the United Kingdom for the construction of new fishing vessels. Hardly a penny of that theoretically high grant arrived because of overcapacity in other parts of the United Kingdom.
A fisherman in my constituency is going after crabs and lobsters and wants to build a new boat with Vivier tanks to be able better to service the markets. He presents no problem in terms of catching capacity but has been denied the funds that the EEC wants to give him because of overcapacity elsewhere.
There must be urgent and tough measures to reduce national capacity. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) spoke of the need for a decommissioning scheme, he emphasised the need for a proper scheme. It must not miss the target. It must not vacuum up the small boats and small fleets and leave the large ones untouched.
There is a second way in which we are being caught up in the national crisis. We are suffering from increasing fishing pressure. Boats from the east coast, confronted with reduced quotas, come to the west coast to try to earn a living. We get caught up because of the pressure on prawns and white fish. We fear the drastic quota cuts that appear to have been agreed for cod and haddock on the east coast because we believe that one result will be a less favourable solution of the haddock quota on the west coast. We fear that boats from other areas will fish off the west coast, as they may fish against two quotas whereas we


may fish against only one. Boats from the east coast could come over to the west, reduce the quota there, leaving nothing for local fishermen in the latter part of the year, and then return to the east, where we may not go, and finish their quota during the remainder of the year. That problem must be tackled. Such issues may seem rather detailed, but we must remember some of the special facets.
I realise that time is short, but I must say something about the amendment that I tabled. I understand why it was not selected, but in it I tried to convey what I have attempted to say in my speech—that we must recognise the very different nature of fishing fleets in different areas. Fish are obviously a finite resource. That is the crux of the problem. Whatever arrangement we arrive at, it obviously cannot he a laissez-faire free-for-all. There has to be controlled management. Because of my appreciation of the different types of fishing done in different areas, I believe that that management would be best organised at local level.
Some organisation of local management and local control is needed as we move into the 1990s and a new common fisheries regime. The fishermen whom I represent look to what has been achieved in the Shetland box, for example. They believe that something along those lines is needed round the Western Isles. That sort of approach will achieve the most benefit for the national interest, and that is the maximum sustainable yield of fish from the west coast area at the lowest cost to the Exchequer. Management regimes do not necessarily cost any money but they achieve the maximum benefit to the community in terms of jobs and downstream processing. That is why the fishermen in my constituency look to the Government to ensure the early introduction of some form of local managment scheme.

Sir Michael Shaw: I shall not take up the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) save to say that I agree that we must remember that the fishing industry comprises many local industries, many of which have special features. I represent two fishing fleets that have individual characteristics. Whitby and Scarborough both have long traditions. They have their own communities and they have a living to earn. By tradition they have handed down their boats and knowhow from father to son, from generation to generation. The situation this year is so serious that their livelihoods are endangered unless something can be done rapidly to restore security.
I recall the debates of 1983 which led to the House agreeing to the common fisheries policy. I remember the hopes that we all had for stability and prosperity in fishing as a result of that agreement. It was a good agreement. There were advantages to the United Kingdom and its fishermen, as there were to the fishermen of other member states. Alas and alack, things have not worked out as we hoped. What went wrong? I have argued ever since I became a Member of this place, often on the basis of arguments advanced by the fishermen in my constituency, that the scientists are wrong and that the fishermen know better. Scientists may be wrong occasionally, but not always. They could not have got it wrong every year since the agreement was made.
Quotas have been agreed upon and then ignored. Inspection systems have been inadequate to achieve their

purpose. Looking back, I believe that the scientists were right on the whole and that the system has not been used properly. There has been a considerable breaking of quotas by many member states. None of us is perfect, but we have tried to adhere to the rules. Now that the quota system is being more efficiently policed and inspection has improved, we face the consequences of the earlier years of the agreement when it was so often and so heavily broken. Now there is a a lack of fish.
That brings me to the negotiations which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must enter next week. We have been fortunate ever since the agreement was reached in 1983 to have been represented by Ministers—my right hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), and now by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—who have respected the fishing industry and fought hard on its behalf. They have not always been as successful as we wished because others had to be considered in the negotiations, but we must have an agreement for the North sea. If not, the future will be disastrous for anyone who wishes to make a living from it.
I know that my right hon. Friend will do his level best at the meeting next week and that he will seek some important answers from the Commission. The Commission has produced quota figures lower than those presented to us by our scientific advisers. We are faced also with a late agreement with Norway. It is unfortunate that no reasons have been given. As others have asked, do we need to ratify the Norwegian agreement straight away? That is a good question. Should we not insist that the Commission, which has made such a rotten job of it so far, returns to Norway to engage in some more arguing to some purpose? If it chooses not to do so, let us hear from it why it came to such a poor agreement with Norway.
What should my right hon. Friend be seeking? I agree that he should be looking for the maximum that can be justified by scientific advice. Without using that advice we have no foundation on which to base our arguments. There will have to be strong reasons—these have certainly not been advanced so far by the Commission—why we should not accept scientific advice. We should seek every possible way of tightening quality observance and the policing of catches.
We must continue to improve our methods of conservation. The effect of the conservation measures of today does not become apparent until several years have passed. The measures are designed to benefit those who fish in the future. Therefore, we must press again for the various measures that have been urged by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, including those that determine mesh sizes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said, various matters have been urged strongly by representatives of fishing.
If national quotas are set for any species, they should not be allocated merely to the various regions of the United Kingdom. I hope that the individual regions will fish with fixed quotas and enforceable penalties. The fishermen who are represented by the hon. Member for Berwick-up-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and I have suffered because of the failure to operate such a policy. That must not be allowed to happen again.
The fishermen in my constituency are greatly concerned about the future as a result of the proposals being made by the Commission. But I have confidence that my right hon.


Friend will do his level best to try to wrest more sense out of the Commission. I wish him good luck in his endeavours in the week ahead.

Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move, to leave out from "prices" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
and calls upon the Government whilst paying proper regard to the need to conserve fishing stocks, to make every effort to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the British fishing industry in 1990, and to bring forward proposals both to supplement existing conservation measures and to facilitate the restructuring of the fishing fleet, and in particular, to help manage a reduction in capacity through the introduction of a decommissioning scheme.
The wide geographical contributions to the debate from south-east Cornwall, the Western Isles and Scarborough make it clear that a crisis is facing the British fishing industry. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) was right to remind us that that crisis affects different communities in different ways. There is clear unanimity that the Council of Ministers, which the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland will attend next week, is of crucial importance to the industry. Our amendment gives them every encouragement to try to achieve the best possible deal in terms of fishing opportunities for British fishermen, consistent with the necessary considerations of conservation.
Many of us thought the position bad enough last year, when the haddock total allowable catch was drastically reduced from 128,000 tonnes to 54,000 tonnes. Many of us warned of the dire consequences that could face the industry and the communities around our coast, which are so dependent on the fishing industry. We now face proposals to implement an even greater cut. Unless proper measures are introduced, many of our communities will be devastated.
The haddock total allowable catch is only one quarter of the 1988 TAC, with the cod TAC being just above half its 1988 level. Many of us believe that that is the result of the Commission's actions in recent weeks, not least in the negotiations with Norway. I share the view expressed by the Minister, the Opposition spokesman and other hon. Members that the proposals have been left until the last minute and that there has not been adequate time fully to consider them.
There are a number of lessons to be learnt. The Norwegians have certain advantages in negotiations, but, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said, certain bargaining counters were also in the Commission's hands. None of us yet knows what in the world possessed Senor Marin to enter the negotiations with Norway at a very late stage and propose such ridiculously low TACs. It is difficult enough to try to persuade fishermen to accept TACs based on scientific advice; it is almost impossible —and no one would wish to try—to get them to accept TACs that have been put forward for some obscure negotiation purpose.
The other matter which is causing great irritation, even fury, is the increase in TACs for the industrial fisheries by-catch. Most fishermen fish for fish which end up on a consumer's plate, not in an industrial fishery. That aspect has compounded an already bad situation. We were pleased to hear the Minister say that when he goes to

Brussels he will seek to activate the Hague preference. We welcome that assurance and encourage him in his negotiations to achieve that.
My hon. Friends and I who represent fishing constituencies obviously want the Government to secure the best possible deal for the industry. As all hon. Members have said, the figures on the table are not acceptable. However, we accept the important requirements of conservation. I well remember that when my hon. Friends and I met the Parliamentary Secretary last month he said graphically that he did not wish to be the Minister with responsibility for fisheries when the last haddock was taken out of the North sea. We have no desire to be the Opposition party that encouraged him to be so. That would not be a responsible position to take.
The scientists who recommend TACs are an easy target for criticism and there is some justification in the allegation that in recent years they must have got something wrong. Only two years ago, when they were setting the TAC for haddock for 1988, they recommended an increase. In today's circumstances, that recommendation appears incredible. It is worth noting that at the time the Scottish Fishermen's Federation simply did not believe it. Nevertheless, on the table are TACs for haddock and for cod which still fall short of what the scientists recommended. There is scope for an increase and I am sure that the Minister will try to obtain that. I understand that the Germans, the Danes and the Irish are not at all happy with the proposals. I hope that the Minister can put together that majority and obtain a far better deal.
I must make something clear to the Minister, but I do not do so in any hostile or partisan way. It is more a kindly word of warning. If he returns to the House next week and announces that he has successfully achieved a higher level of TAC, even that will not be a reason for rolling out the red carpet.

Mr. Gummer: No.

Mr. Wallace: I am glad that the Minister acknowledges that. The secretary of the Shetland Fish Producers Organisation said that the proposal was a compromise between a disaster and a catastrophe. What we seek, as reflected in our amendment, is a package of measures, not simply a better set of TACs.
One matter to which the Minister did not refer but which forms part of the Commission's proposals relates to the management of the haddock TAC. There is a specific proposal about fishing vessels having to cease fishing for 10 consecutive days per month if their catch had gone above a certain level in the past 18 months. There is another proposal for ceasing to fish other stocks when the total haddock TAC has been reached. That has met with considerable opposition within the fishing industry. Having been given a TAC, we should be left to manage it.

Mr. Gummer: I very much share the industry's concern about that proposal, which clearly seeks to interfere with the management of the TACs—or at least the quotas—within individual nations. We have enough trouble trying to manage our own quotas without other people telling us how to do it. I shall have to find better ways to manage the quotas for the reasons put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). There is a real problem of over-fishing by one part of the country causing losses in another part. That must be carefully


considered, but the position is not helped by other people trying to tell us how to do it. It is not an area in which I intend to follow the Commission.

Mr. Wallace: We welcome the Minister's reassurance on that matter.
I shall not dwell on another part of the package because the Minister responded satisfactorily to my earlier intervention on precautionary TACs. He gave an encouraging response on the need for a better package of conservation measures to supplement rather than substitute for TACs and quotas. Reference has been made to the proposals put forward by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which have been largely adopted by the Scottish Office. A number of specific measures have been mentioned, including the square mesh nets. An important measure is to try to make enforcement of conservation measures easier, with liability arising if a vessel is carrying rather than using illegal equipment. It is also important to recognise the willingness to accept the one-net rule. The Minister rightly stressed that the measures were tough. I am sure that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the Northumbrian fishermen did not suggest them lightly or without a great deal of debate among their members. It is to the credit of the industry that it has proposed such measures.
The Minister said that he had pressed the Commission on a number of conservation proposals and that they would be the subject of further negotiation. I hope that the Secretary of State, in his reply, will say what will be the likely timescale for any possible developments. It is widely recognised that we are dealing with an urgent situation. For it to continue into the distant future is unacceptable and a number of conservation measures should now come into play.
Hon. Members have expressed their concern about the number of discards. That is almost invariably mentioned at meetings with fishermen or those involved in the fishing industry. Despite the fact that the haddock TAC for this year has been fished out, many fishermen are still finding substantial volumes of haddock in their nets when fishing for other species.
We need measures other than the conservation measures already mentioned. The Minister singularly omitted to mention the need for decommissioning. If we have a problem, it is made even greater by having a large fleet, all the members of which are trying to get as much as they can within the legitimate bounds of the TACs.
If these measures go through, in 1990 we shall catch one quarter of the haddock allowed in 1988. Yet there has been no commensurate reduction in the capacity of the fleet. Time and again hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, have called for a decommissioning scheme as an essential requirement.
The Minister should be grateful that the industry joins in such calls. Many Ministers would be only too pleased if they could stand at the Dispatch Box knowing that an industry for which capacity cuts had been announced was going along with those cuts and proposing ways in which they could he managed.
There will undoubtedly be some damaging effects, but we are trying to keep those to a minimum. I shall be interested to hear the views of the Secretary of State for Scotland on decommissioning when he replies. There has

been some suggestion that he and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food do not always see eye to eye.
As the hon. Member for South Shields said, I understand why the Minister, given his previous dangling with a decommissioning scheme, has so many reservations about it. But he cannot hide behind the Public Accounts Committee's report in trying to put off any further decommissioning scheme. The Public Accounts Committee, in its twenty-fourth report of April 1988, made it clear that it was criticising the way in which that scheme operated. In the summary of its recommendations and conclusions it says:
For the future, we expect MAFF to determine more specific objectives for any grant schemes of this kind; and to consider fully the need for flexibility so as to ensure that they provide better value for money than was obtained from decommissioning grants.
It is clear from that that the Public Accounts Committee foresaw that at some future stage there might well be other decommissioning schemes but recommended ways in which they could be better administered than the previous one. That report cannot be used as an excuse for shying away from introducing a decommissioning scheme.
The Department has proposed such things as aggregate licensing. That has a role to play but it will only scratch the surface of what is needed. We would like to see the temporary lay-up scheme followed up. I accept that the benefits to be derived from that are small, but at a time like this anything is welcome.
What we cannot accept is that things are left hanging in the air and left to the free market. We are not dealing with a free market. When the Government and the EC can so dramatically and drastically determine the catching opportunity, the Government are clearly in the marketplace and there must be other ways in which they can help the industry to restructure its effort and keep a modern and efficient fleet which matches capacity more closely to fishing opportunities.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland can go to Brussels with every exhortation to get a good deal, but they must come back with a satisfactory outcome, not just on TACs, but on conservation and, in particular, a commitment to introduce measures to restructure the industry, particularly to manage a decline in the industry's capacity through decommissioning. It is on that that they will be judged.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) does not appear to seek to divide the House, but rather to clarify matters and to bring extra views to the House, which all hon. Members will value. What is remarkable about fishing is that it is the one industry in Britain that unites hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The eastern part of the Channel, with its substantial fishing ports of Hastings and Rye which I represent, may not be as hard hit as our friends in the northern and eastern fleets, but it should be clearly understood in Brussels that not only does the Minister go with our good will but he is speaking on behalf of all the fishermen round the coast who are unified in their condemnation of the haphazard way in which Brussels conducts its negotiations year after year.
It is clear that Norway and Sweden have outmanoeuvred Brussels. It is as simple as that. They know that Brussels has a propensity for photo-finishes at the end of the year. Why, over the years, has not Brussels co-ordinated negotiations in such a way as to find out what trade-offs countries outside the EEC want rather than trying to do a deal on fishing?
I hope that the Minister will convey strongly our views on the Commission's ineptitude in the negotiating meeting next week. It is strange that the Commission cannot negotiate but it can produce hundreds of pages without coming to any conclusions that the House could be expected to back.
I hope that during negotiations my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the effect not only on fishermen but on the food processing and fish industries which depend on the landings round our coasts. I am anxious that the Government should be seen to be more forthcoming in supporting the British industry at a time of crisis.
Decommissioning has been mentioned, but I am particularly worried about the Government's strange reluctance to invest in research at a time when the industry is facing recognised difficulties. Why have they not put more effort into developing the possibilities of inshore sea fish farming solutions which already work well for some species?
My right hon. Friend will not mind if I draw his attention to the way in which the honourable fishermen of Hastings and Rye march in line with all the conservation measures that are proposed, only to hear the Government say that the offshore gravel beds, which are known to be the source of the young fish on which we rely for supplying you, Mr. Speaker, with your Dover sole and plaice, can be dug up.
Fishermen are respected by all in their communities, and there is no question but that, certainly along the Sussex coast, they back conservation. However, they expect more understanding and less nonsense from Brussels.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall not deal with the Norwegian agreement. I agree with everything that the Minister said on that. His criticisms of it were so strong that I do not know why he does not insist that it be renegotiated. It is a bad agreement and it needs renegotiation. If his criticism is as telling as that, why does he not ask for that to take place?
However, I cannot accept the Minister's call for a bipartisan approach to the issue. In the past 10 or 11 years we have had two staples of Government policy towards the fishing industry. There has effectively been a policy, first, to let market forces restructure the fishing industry and, secondly, to get a common fisheries policy and trust to that. It is those two staples of policy over the past 10 years that have produced the crisis that the industry is now facing in a state of shock, dismay and anger.
We are paying the price for years of inadequate policing of the common fisheries policy. Onshore authorities in competitor countries have turned a blind eye to malpractice, overfishing and failure to observe quotas in a way that has not happened in Britain, and now we are paying the price for the inadequacy of resources devoted to

policing by this Government as much as any. We have seen also the consequences of years of high discards—of fish being caught and then chucked back dead. That in itself is a major threat to conservation. The result of all that is also seen in today's crisis. That situation cannot be made good by panic cuts in total allowable catches and in quotas of the type proposed.
What is required is a drastic new, conservation-based approach. I was dismayed to hear that officials in the Department do not think it appropriate to put conservation back into next week's negotiations, because conservation is the central issue. We must produce new measures for dealing with conservation, which would take the weight off quotas and TACs. The fishing industry shall not live by quotas and TACs alone, although unless there is some kind of supplement it may die by TACs and quotas alone.
The key supplement seems to me—and to many in the industry, judging by some of the speeches today—to be an increase in mesh sizes. I can speak on this subject with a perfectly clear conscience because Grimsby fishermen use a mesh size of 110 mm, compared with 90 mm in the Scottish fishing industry. The use of a larger mesh size is the proper way to help conservation, because it ensures that the young, immature fish escape.
Research indicates that a larger mesh size is the best way of aiding conservation. It accounts for the fact that discards in Grimsby are much lower, at about 4 per cent., than in the Scottish industry. I shall not venture to guess the percentage of its discards. It could be as much as 50 per cent. Certainly the figure is much higher than for Grimsby.
Why do the Government not demand universal adherence to a mesh size of 110mm? Unless that happens, Scottish fishing vessels deprived of opportunities will move to the grounds used by Grimsby fishermen, for example. In that situation, Grimsby's fishing industry, having adopted a mesh size of 110mm, will be decimated. It would also prove disastrous for conservation, and would give rise to a descending spiral of competitive catching. At this juncture, it is vital to move to bigger mesh sizes.
It is vital also to insist on shortening extension pieces. Again, Scotland uses 15m extension pieces whereas Grimsby fishermen use extension pieces of only 2m as we do south of the border. The shorter the extension piece, the better for conservation, and the more the number of small and immature fish that escape. It is also essential to deal with the problem of discards. Discards should be brought back and landed with the rest of the catch, and then recorded as part of the quota. That would be the most effective way of dealing with the problem. The Minister should insist on that practice in the EEC, rather than give us a mealy-mouthed talk deploring discards but suggesting nothing to deal with them effectively. He should insist on discards being landed and properly policed. The discards are dead and are a threat to conservation, and unless they are properly dealt with there cannot be proper policing.
It is also essential that the Government spend more money on policing. The North sea is inadequately policed due to Government spending cuts and the Department's failure to live up to its responsibilities. As almost every hon. Member who spoke has said, there must also be a proper decommissioning scheme. I know that the Government got their fingers burnt with the last scheme, but it is wrong to blame the industry for the fact that the


Department made such a mess of it. The industry should not be asked to pay the price for the incompetent administration of the last decommissioning scheme.
I would like to see such a scheme geared to taking out the largest and most efficient vessels, because they are responsible for creating conservation problems. Grimsby vessels, of which I am very proud, are good vessels from a conservation point of view, but in the main they are old. I would prefer to see Government support to help keep those vessels fishing for reduced catches rather than see them taken out of service. On that I disagree with the National Federaton of Fishermen's Organisations, which is based in Grimsby. Nevertheless, a decommissioning scheme must be established if catching capacity is to be kept in balance with conservation.
As to quotas and TACs, it is all very well the Minister saying that he will resist any reduction of the size that Commissioner Marin seems to have picked out of the hat in respect of the Norwegian negotiations, but the Minister must draw a balance between the industry's catching capacity, the desire for an orderly run-down, and scientific advice. It is not enough to use the scientific advice as a shield in defence of all criticisms. A balance must be achieved between the industry's viability, its managed run-down, and scientific advice. If that is not done, we shall witness a descending spiral of intense competition.
For Grimsby, cod quotas are the central issue. I may say in passing that I am unhappy at the behaviour of the Scottish fishing industry, which forced the haddock ban on us. The Scottish industry's irresponsible behaviour was justified and even defended by DAFS, which seems to do a better job of making deals for the Scottish fishing industry than MAFF does for the English industry. In support of that contention, I quote from the Eurofish report of 23 November:
The UK's largest body, the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation, and the North East Scottish FBO are considered to he chiefly to blame for forcing that closure"—of the haddock fisheries.

Mr. Gummer: Perhaps I may reassure the hon. Gentleman that north of the border Scottish fishermen take exactly the opposite view and feel that the deal done for English fishermen by myself and MAFF is better than that done by DAFS. That is part of those fishermen's view of other fishermen. As to the hon. Gentleman's comments about cuts in policing, I checked up on that aspect particularly because I should not want to mislead the House. There has been no cut in policing. In fact, we have forced an increase at a European level, and we have kept our own policing up. The hon. Gentleman must not talk about cuts when they have not taken place and will not take place.

Mr. Mitchell: The Minister exaggerates the case. Policing is inadequate. The demonstrable consequence of that is the situation in which we now find ourselves. The European effort, which the Minister praises himself for having secured, is totally inadequate. There must be a much more effective common policing system, rather than relying on shore authorities, which are often in collusion with their own country's fishing industry.
As to whether MAFF does a better job for the English industry than DAFS does for Scotland, my experience is that the Scots get a much better deal from DAFS. The industry's growth over the past few years certainly indicates that that is the case. If I were a fisherman, I

would rather be defended by DAFS than by MAFF, which pays a great deal of attention to the demands of farmers but little to those of fishermen.
I return to the central issue of the cod quota. The Minister said that he would invoke the Hague preference. I hope that he will promise to resist any fall in the quota below the level at which the Hague preference must be invoked. I understand from a parliamentary answer of 13 November that the limit is 43,179 tonnes of cod. Why does not the Minister pledge himself to resist any reduction in the cod quota below that level so that the Hague preference will not have to be invoked, which would not benefit Grimsby, dependent though it is on fishing?
The scientific advice in respect of the saithe and coley quotas is somewhat doubtful. A cut is being recommended because there has been a certain use of paper fish in that particular fishery. All the evidence suggests that recruitment is increasing, and that we do not need a cut. A cut would affect the British industry disproportionately because, unlike the Community, it catches its saithe quota.
I hope that the Minister will resist the proposal by his colleague in the Department of Transport to end the Decca navigation system, which has involved huge investment in charts and personal information banks arid the scrapping of which would impose a considerable cost on an industry not at present equipped to bear such costs.
The real problem is the Government's attitude. The Minister keeps returning to his fishing responsibilities. He is, in a sense, a reconstituted fishing Minister—a kind of departmental crabstick. He tells us that market forces will decide the shape of the industry and that the common fisheries policy is working well, but both claims are manifestly wrong. We need firm action to resist the proposals, but we also need a Ministry willing to help the industry financially, as the hill farmers were helped in the disastrous rain-sodden summer of four or five years ago.
The fishing industry has been asked to take a huge cut in its catching capacity and its earning power, and it needs financial help, not just a decommissioning scheme that will work. The Government must live up to their responsibilities, as well as preaching the forces of dire necessity.

Mr. David Harris: I will not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), especially his unfair attack on my right hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that the overwhelming feeling of hon. Members on both sides of the House is delight at his return, as he has brought back to the Ministry his tremendous knowledge of the fishing industry and his determination to fight for it.
Sadly, only a few weeks ago a Cornish fishing boat—the Flamingo—was lost off my constituency, with the death of two Cornish fishermen. That is a tragic reminder of the risk that our fishermen take every time they go to sea, for conditions were pretty good that day: there were no storms or rough seas. Today's debate is largely preoccupied with the economic state of the industry, but we should also remember the human aspect.
A natural feature of the economic approach, however, is our habit of concentrating on the respects in which things are going badly. Although I do not wish to minimise the problems, I feel that we should remind ourselves from time to time of some of the success stories. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall,


South-East (Mr. Hicks) mention how Looe, a port in his constituency, has been developed: we all rejoice in its success, and in the news that a market has been built there. Newlyn, a port in my constituency, now has a £20 million-a-year trade in fish, and in Devon, the neighbouring county, Brixham's trade amounts to £15 million a year. That is big business, and we should also consider the employment that such developments create.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East mentioned the increase in boats in Looe. That increase, which applies to many coastal areas, has added to the pressure on stocks; but the problem relates not only to the boats themselves but to their catching capacity. I may anticipate the remarks of the spokesman of a certain party north of the border when I express the hope that we all recognise that the tremendous increase in capacity is a major contributor to the present difficulties.
Coming as I do from the other end of the country, I appreciate the difficulties of Scottish and North sea fishermen—which they will continue to face, I suspect, in the years ahead. Perhaps the cuts with which we in the south-west are threatened are not so deep, but we must not be smug. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East about the need to maintain the Channel quota for cod, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will bear that in mind when he goes to Brussels next week.
An issue that has exercised the mind of every hon. Member—although no one except my right hon. Friend mentioned it this evening—is quota-hopping, the disgraceful practice whereby Spanish boats in particular have moved into our waters and literally stolen our quotas. I am sorry to note the absence of one or two of my colleagues who were present at 3 am a few weeks ago when we debated an amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act 1984. I have a nasty suspicion—which I shall banish immediately from my mind—that they were more interested in bashing a European institution, in this case the European Court of Justice, than in showing an interest in the fishing industry.
My right hon. Friend was perhaps wise not to give way to me when he touched on the decision by the European Court. I warmly welcome that decision and know that it will also be welcomed in the south-west, which as the part of England nearest to Spain has borne the brunt of the pernicious practice of quota-hopping. I was going to ask my right hon. Friend—although presumably my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will give the answer—what the ruling of the European Court will mean in practical terms. How many Spanish boats will be left on the register? At the time of the setback a few weeks ago it was said that, of a total of between 100 and 150 boats, perhaps a dozen might have to stay on the new register of fishing vessels. Whatever the figure, however, we welcome the court's decision: we seem to have won most of the case that we were making not only in the courts of this land, but in the European Court. If an end has been put to quota-hopping, it may be the best news that has come from today's debate.
Many other topics could be discussed, but I shal revert to the issue that has dominated the debate: the serious cuts in quotas for the North sea and Scotland. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) was right.

When we consider the fishing industry, we naturally tend to do so from the constituency point of view and from the point of view of our own fishermen and ports. The whole industry is, in fact, related and what affects the Scottish and North sea fishermen can have a repercussive effect on fishermen in the west of Cornwall. If fishermen elsewhere are in difficulties and suffer a cut in fishing opportunities, as happened in the mackerel fishery, they will come down to the south-west of England and catch what we sometimes think of as "our" fish. The crisis in the North sea and Scotland is casting a long shadow which stretches right down to the south-west of England.
Uncertainty hangs over the whole industry. I do not for a moment blame Opposition Members for returning to the problem of how on earth we are going to restructure the fishing fleet. We all agree that there is overcapacity in the fleet. The problem that my right hon. and hon. Friends must address is how to resolve that overcapacity. I do not know whether my right hon. Friends will go down the route of a decommissioning scheme, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will throw some light on Government thinking tonight. I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food nodding his head in agreement and I await the winding-up speech with some eagerness.
If my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland can hold out some hope on that front, this debate will have been worth while. It will also have been worth while if we reinforce Ministers' determination, when they go to Brussels next week, to pursue the line that was set out at the beginning of the debate by my right hon. Friend. I am sure that that line is correct and that he will have the backing of the House in pursuing it next week in Brussels.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The House will understand my anxiety and that of my hon. Friends to speak in this debate in defence of the fishing industry. It is a cause that we inherit because of the constituencies that we represent. The Minister asked today for a consensus. I can tell him that unless the winding-up speech is substantially stronger than the opening speech, he will not receive support from my party. In no circumstances could my party—or, I suspect, many other hon. Members—subscribe to a policy which could bring about the ruination of our fishing industry.
Furthermore, we must consider the complacency, confusion and disarray of the Government's fishing policy in the past two years. First, there has been complacency. The Minister apologised for the circumstances of the debate and for the deluge of late information available to hon. Members. Perhaps he could do nothing about that —the circumstances may have been beyond his control —but it is most certainly in the Minister's control that, disgracefully, this is the only major parliamentary opportunity in the whole year for a wide-scale debate on the fortunes of this vital industry. It is remarkable that Members of the minority parties, including myself, my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), have managed to force three debates on the fishing industry in the past few months but there has been no general debate on the fishing industry in Government time in the past year. One annual


debate on the fishing industry is an insult to the importance of that industry and to the Scottish and United Kingdom economies.
Only last year, the Minister's predecessor made what was billed as a major speech in Europe on the common fisheries policy, which he said was bringing "stability and prosperity" to fishing communities. We see not stability and prosperity in our fishing communities but volatility and penury as the immediate prospect.
Secondly, there has been confusion in the Government's fisheries policy. That is best represented by the impasse on the decommissioning scheme. In the past six months, it has been well reported and understood in Scotland that there is a conflict between the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Scottish Office favoured a decommissioning scheme while the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was ensuring that such a scheme would not be implemented. When I raised that suggestion in the press, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the noble Lord Sanderson, loyally wrote to me on 11 October and said that I had no basis for making such an allegation.
Unfortunately for the noble Lord, on that very day, under the heading, "Gummer sinks fishers' hopes", the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was quoted in a Scottish newspaper as speaking at the Conservative conference in hostile terms about the decommissioning scheme. So unpopular was the Minister's opposition to the decommissioning scheme and so unpopular was his tendency to blame the industry for the problems that it faces, rather than to accept any policy responsibility, that even a journal such as the Scottish edition of The Sunday Times, which is not noted for its trenchant criticisms of Government policy, was moved to say on 22 October in a column by Allan Massie:
The attempt made by John Selwyn Gummer, minister of agriculture, fisheries and food, to throw responsibility for the crisis back on the Scottish fishermen was a characteristically silly and shabby effort to evade Whitehall's responsibility.
I hope that in the winding-up speech tonight the Scottish Office view and not the view of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will prevail on decommissioning.
Thirdly, there has been disarray in the Government's fisheries policy over the past two years. For the past two years, there has been no licensing scheme, there has been a stalemate on decommissioning and at the heart of today's debate has been the fact that the Government's conservation policy is contradictory. Once again, the Minister seeks to hide behind scientific advice from the Commission. That is dangerous because scientific advice is not all on one side. Senor Marin himself, arguing for his version of the cod and haddock quotas, will also be able to claim that he is acting on scientific advice on the bottom range of scientific advice as opposed to the top range.
We know that over the past seven years the procedure of following scientific advice with TACs and then quotas which have not been overfished still has failed to bring about any recovery in the main fisheries stocks and especially the haddock stock. There is a simple reason for that when the quotas are forced down to low levels. As that happens, the number and weight of discards automatically rises. It is a major problem and was even recognised in the voluminous documentation that we received today on the negotiations between the Commission and Norway.
The way forward for the fisheries lies in technical changes such as restrictions on fisheries gear and movement to the one-net rule.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I intervene only to ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify this point. I have sympathy with many of his points, but I am not clear about his party's policy on the TACs for the coming year. Does he argue that we should disregard the scientific advice and try to force a higher level of TACs than is advocated by our own scientists, or is he prepared to live with that and to pin his hopes on the structural changes to which he now refers? That is important.

Mr. Salmond: It is indeed important, and I am coming to that point now. Our argument is that in fisheries policy the emphasis should move towards allowing the immature fish to escape alive and not discarding them dead in the North sea. The Minister made two points that puzzled me. First, he seemed to suggest that it was a policy which might work, and there is substantial scientific advice, especially from the marine laboratory in Aberdeen, that the policy would indeed work. The Minister of State, Scottish Office was confident in the Adjournment debate on 21 November that there would be
real benefits in a relatively short time"—[Official Report, 21 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 110.]
Secondly, the Minister seemed to doubt my credentials in arguing for such a policy. I do not know whether the Minister reads the report of Scottish Estimates debates in the Scottish Grand Committee. On 13 July 1989, I went into a new conservation policy in some detail.
If we are moving to a policy which stands a substantial chance of being successful, we must acknowledge the difficulties that it will create for the fishing industry and the sacrifices that it is accepting. It will be extremely difficult to attempt to impose such a policy—and it must be imposed—if we do so against the background of insupportably low quotas. That is why my party believes that the bottom line for quotas should be the Hague preference total of 60,000 tonnes for haddock and 43,000 tonnes for cod, which may be met within the negotiations. That should be the bottom line for quotas. Policy emphasis should move to new conservation measures.

Mr. Gummer: I ask the hon. Gentleman a direct question. Is he saying that before any of his conservation measures could take effect this year the British Government should seek quotas higher than those which scientists say are safe and thereby endanger the future of the fishing industry?

Mr. Salmond: I ask the Minister to take on board the fact that observance of TACs has not protected the status of the fishing industry. [Interruption.] I am coming to the Minister's question. Conservation measures should be discussed at the Fisheries Council meeting, and they should be implemented in the coming year. That matter should be debated in Brussels now, not the arid, sterile subject of TACs. As has been said, we do not even have the assurance that those will be the major issues to be discussed next week. We should discuss conservation measures next week and implement this year.

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman does not answer the direct question, he will face the accusation of dishonesty. He must answer the question. Does he recommend that, when I go to Brussels with my right hon.


and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, for the first time in British history I should argue that we should ignore scientific advice and opt for a figure which scientists tell us would endanger the future of the fishing industry? Does he say that or does he not?

Mr. Salmond: I have already pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that the bottom line should be the quotas of 60,000 tonnes and 43,000 tonnes in the Hague preference. Of course that is above the top range of scientific advice, but, as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, there is substantial evidence that scientific advice in the past seven years has been deeply flawed. The scientific advice in 1976 suggested a sharp increase in the haddock quota and has caused many problems. Was that also correct? I want a pledge from the Government that the focus of debate will move to conservation policies which might work and move away from TACs, which have failed in the past few years.
I make four points to the Government. First, we want the Marin proposals, as amended by the Commission, wiped off the table. Nor do we want a patch-up between the Commission proposals and scientific advice. It will not be acceptable to massage the figures up by a few thousand tonnes and claim victory after the Council's meetings next week.
I want an answer from the Minister and from the Secretary of State for Scotland: will the Luxembourg veto be used to block the settlement if it is not considered acceptable? Are the Government going to the EEC negotiations armed with the Luxembourg veto? The Prime Minister argues that the Luxembourg veto still exists within the Community for matters of vital national interest. From a Scottish perspective, there is no doubt that this is a matter of vital national interest. Will the Government go to the negotiations able and prepared to use that veto if the deal on the table is unsatisfactory? I do not want to unscramble the common fisheries policy, but if it comes to the crunch, I would rather unscramble the common fisheries policy than see it scramble the Scottish fishing industry.
Secondly, I should like an assurance that the new conservation agenda, which seems to have a good deal of all-party support, will feature in the Council's deliberations next week. Will it be debated? Will the Government make sure that other EEC countries acknowledge its force? Will there be rapid implementation of the conservation proposals? I should also like an assurance about industrial fishing. We are talking tonight about a total allowable catch for haddock in the North sea of about 32,000 tonnes for human consumption. In contrast, 1 million tonnes of pout and sand-eels have been taken by industrial fishing in the North sea over the past year. Will the Government acknowledge and explain the discrepancy between the huge tonnage for industrial fishing and the limited tonnage for human consumption? Can the Government explain why there is a 50,000 tonnes increase in the whiting by-catch for industrial fishing? Is that acceptable? When will we consider industrial fishing as a major cause of the industry's problems?
Thirdly, I am happy to say that the bottom line for the United Kingdom fisheries negotiation should be the Hague preference figures as agreed by the Council in 1976. I should like to see a wider application of the Hague

preference. The Hague preference acknowledged that some areas of the Community—Ireland, northern Britain and, at that time, Greenland—had a special right to preference in the application of the common fisheries policy. That can be acknowledged in respect of quotas, so why can it not be acknowledged for decommissioning schemes and lay-up schemes, and why can it not help the processing sector through the FEOGA grant system? Is the Secretary of State for Scotland prepared to argue for the Hague preference across the range of fisheries policy?
Fourthly and finally, hon. Members hope and expect to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland say how capacity is to be reduced both temporarily and permanently. Will the Government apply access to the lay-up schemes that currently exist in Community regulation 4028/86? Will that be part of the Government's policy next year?

Mr. Brian Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has given notice that this is his last point. He is perfectly properly pushing a constituency interest rather than the Scottish fishing industry as a whole. Does he have any sympathy with the points made on behalf of the west coast fishing industry, the interests of which have not historically been compatible with those of some of his own constituents? I should like clear guidance as to whether he supports my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) in saying that there should not be a knock-on effect from the troubles of fishermen in the North sea to those whose home waters are on the west coast, particularly in the Minch.

Mr. Salmond: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have never sought to divide and rule the Scottish fishing industry. I have never launched attacks on west coast fishermen, as he has consistently done on fishermen from the north-east of Scotland. In contrast to hon. Members who represent English fishing constituencies, I have made no attack on fishermen in Hull, Grimsby or elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman should take on board the fact that, unless a satisfactory deal can be made for the North sea, there is bound to be a scramble for stocks not only on the west coast but around the United Kingdom generally. That is why, just for a change, my party would like the hon. Gentleman's support in defending the whole Scottish fishing industry and not just the interests that he wants to represent.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Salmond: I will not take any more information from the hon. Gentleman. I have already allowed him to intervene. My party represents the whole Scottish fishing industry. We are not launching an attack on any part of it.
We need an assurance that the fishing industry will be given the priority that it deserves. The most tangible assurance would be for the Minister to make it clear that, if no satisfactory deal is on offer next week, the United Kingdom veto will be available to block any deal that will cause the ruination of our fishing industry and fishing communities.

Mr. Barry Field: The sense of unreality about our debate this evening is highlighted by the fact that one of the documents that we are considering deals with the price of tuna. When I was in the Bay of Biscay three years ago, the tuna ships there were laid up because


tuna had been fished to such an extent that no stocks were left. It is a sign of the responsibility that falls upon the shoulders of my right hon. Friend the Minister if I say that over 60 per cent. of the total EEC fish stock in the EEC pond is found within the 200-mile limit around the United Kingdom.
I believe that I am correct in saying—perhaps my right hon. Friend will confirm this—that no other member of the EEC has such a sophisticated inspectorate. I first tabled a question on this subject in November 1987 and did so again in March 1988. My right hon. Friend met fishermen in Portsmouth in May 1988 to discuss conservation. I welcome him back, not only to the Front Bench, but to fielding on fish.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that the North sea would predominate in this debate. He illustrated my point for me because I do not wish to talk about distant water quotas or about the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Association. Although most people's perception is that all fishing takes place north of Watford or west of Portland Bill, literally hundreds of inshore fishermen earn their living from the North Foreland to Land's End.
My right hon. Friend said that he takes note of the scientific advice that he receives. I draw his attention to the report by Messrs Pawson and Pickett on bass fishing stocks in the Channel. They state in paragraph 38 that the bass regularly move out of the six-mile zone. In paragraph 39 they draw attention to the fact that in unseasonably warm weather the bass move north earlier and there is an increase in the influx of international bass. Paragraph 51 states:
We now know that bass spend more time offshore as they grow older and become progressively less accessible to the British fishery".
In fact, the French regularly fish the adult spawning stock, which starts off Land's End and moves mid-Channel between January and May. The French pair fish, taking up to 40 tonnes at a time. We are not living in the real world if we believe that mummy bass says to daddy bass, "I suppose we'll swim up the English side of the Channel today to avoid all those naughty French fishermen who tend to overfish the stocks on that side of the Channel." My real fear is that when—I emphasise "when"—quotas are eventually introduced for bass fishing, which I believe will happen, they will be based on historic catches. My right hon. Friend has introduced nursery stocks that will restrict the amount of bass that we can take from the Channel.
When my right hon. Friend goes back to the EEC about such matters, I hope that he will negotiate a complete EEC ban on the taking of bass from January to May. We want a minimum fine of £1,000 per fish for each undersized fish taken. For second offences, we want the automatic confiscation of the boat and all its gear. Magistrates must be encouraged to fine the maximum penalty. This evening the Southern Seas Fisheries Committee visited the House and informed us that it had recently found a Solent oyster boat illegally fishing a catch of oysters worth £800, yet the maximum fine for that is £400.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) about the problems of aggregate dredging. If we are serious about conservation—I believe that we are—we must consider the effects of aggregate dredging on the fishing stock and the fish breeding grounds. I have written

to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointing out that the total fees earned by the Crown Estates from aggregate dredging in the Solent waters last year was £100,000. I have been to see the Crown Estates Commissioners, who informed me that they wish to continue to license aggregate dredging in the Solent waters because they provide a sheltered water environment that allows aggregate dredging to continue in rough weather. In the words of local fishermen, that argument is all cockles and rock because one often sees aggregate dredgers in a flat calm in the Solent during August. For £100,000 in licences, we should ask our right hon. Friends at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to join us in requiring a ban on aggregate dredging in the Solent.
I join the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in asking my right hon. Friends to make representations about the phasing out of Decca—that is a most important point.
The Liberal Democrat amendment endeavours to show that this problem has been caused by the Government. Therein lies the dichotomy within that party—it can see no wrong with the European Community, whereas all h on. Members who represent Channel constituencies and who know of the difficulties that our inshore fishermen face know that the true problem is the French, who are not playing the game and who catch bass of a different size.
We wish my right hon. Friend well as he goes to negotiate on our behalf. I hope that we shall have either a proper system of enforcement, especially in relation to the bass fisheries, or a complete ban and controlled areas.

Mr. Frank Doran: I represent a constituency with a tremendous investment in the fishing industry. That investment includes not only catching, but processing and scientific work. Indeed, a great deal of the scientific evidence that has been discussed tonight: is gathered in my constituency at the marine laboratory of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. On behalf of the scientists involved, I took exception to some of the comments that have been made, especially those from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who said that the Government seemed to be hiding behind the scientific advice and suggested that the advice was not altogether accurate or could certainly be devalued.
I have taken the trouble today to try to find out exactly what is involved in gathering that scientific advice and making it available to the European Commission. I discovered that 165,000 fish were measured at commercial landing points, but that the 20,000 fish that were to be discarded were measured on board ship. On top of that, there were over 450 trawls from the marine laboratory's own vessels and from other international vessels with an interest in the North sea.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point. The problem with the scientific advice is that various factors affecting the industry mean that even if the stock assessment is correct, low quotas—because of discards—cannot solve the problems of the industry. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, although TACs have followed scientific advice over the past seven years and there has been no overfishing, the stocks have


continued to decline? He will have noted my glowing reference to the marine laboratory in connection with its research into the new conservation measures.

Mr. Doran: What I acknowledge is that the hon. Gentleman made a glowing reference to the marine laboratory, but then sought to devalue the evidence and refused properly to answer the question put to him. He tried to hide behind a smokescreen when pressed on whether his party would follow that scientific advice and ask the Government to follow it.
It is important to recognise that that work has been going on since 1960 and that it has produced detailed and precise figures—as precise as resources will allow.
My constituency also contains the Torry research laboratory. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) reported, there has been a considerable cut in that laboratory's facilities which has taken away its opportunity to give assistance and advice to the fish-catching industries.

Mr. David Porter: rose—

Mr. Doran: I shall not give way because we are short of time. It is regrettable that that cut has been made at a time when the industry is clearly in crisis.
In the north-east of Scotland 4,000 people are employed in the fish processing industry, many in my constituency. Again, I checked on the consequences of the reported catches. I was told that in Aberdeen there are 500 expert haddock filleters. Filleting is an art form in my constituency. That is the number of people employed to meet this year's quotas. Next year's quota will reduce the number of jobs to 120, and there will be a knock-on effect on every other aspect of processing. A quarter of the jobs will be left when the quota comes into effect.
There are serious anxieties in the processing industry. I join the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) in pleading with Ministers—if, as they should, they consider a decommissioning scheme for the catching side —to consider assistance for the processing side of the industry. Processing is in a state of flux, not only because of the reduction in catches that it has to process but because it is making itself ready for the implementation of EEC regulations on food handling, which will have a profound impact. The industry is vulnerable but crucial and it should not be ignored.
The position of the processing industry is not simply a local interest. Almost all the fish that ends up in British supermarkets, or at least a substantial proportion of it, is processed in my constituency. My plea is not simply a constituency matter but one in which everyone who eats fish has an interest.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan raised the veto of the Hague preference. It is difficult to understand the Hague preference because it is hard to find written evidence. I understand that it was agreed under the Hague preference that, for example, the United Kingdom quota would be 60,000 tonnes of haddock from the North sea. Last year, the former Secretary of State invoked the preference as part of the negotiations and achieved a compromise between what the EEC Commissioners wanted and what the Hague preference said. I do not know

whether the same attitude will be taken this time, but the figure of 60,000 tonnes exceeds the scientific recommendations.
I should be interested to know what the Hague preference said. I want to know what it involves. I ask the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider publishing the annexes to it, which none of us has seen. It is not good enough for information to filter out in bits and pieces during debates. We need to know precisely the basis on which the Government negotiate.
The Scottish press has responded to Scottish National party press releases about the veto or, more accurately, the Luxembourg compromise. Again, there is some uncertainty about the status of that compromise. I paid close attention to what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said. To quote him as closely as possible, he said that the SNP would not subscribe to a policy that would lead to the destruction of the fishing industry. He went on to call for the veto. I do not wish to put the Minister on the spot. The Government need to go into the negotiations with the strongest possible hand, so I do not expect them to declare their hand publicly in the House. I should like the Minister to confirm that there is a veto. If the veto is implemented or invoked, there will be several consequences. Will there be a free-for-all in the North sea?
An essential part of the negotiations will be an agreement with Norway. If the Council of Ministers cannot reach an agreement with Norway, will our fishermen be denied access to the Norwegian sector? Will they be allowed to catch as much as they like in our own sector, to which they have access? Will there be a complete freeze on catching in our sector? That seems a logical outcome. If the entire common fisheries policy operates on the basis of agreed annual quotas and an agreement is not reached, no catching will be allowed. From 1 January, will fishing vessels from my constituency and those of other hon. Members be prevented from operating? If the Luxembourg compromise is invoked, will the Commission be entitled to impose quotas that are far worse than the present ones? We need an interim settlement until agreement is reached. Perhaps the Minister could answer that point.
If any of the options mentioned were realised, the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan would be simply laughable. The SNP's call for a veto would cause serious harm to our fishermen.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Doran: No. The hon. Gentleman took far more time than any other hon. Member who has spoken.
An imposed quota would cause more harm to the Scottish fishing industry and could lead to its destruction, which the hon. Gentleman said the SNP would not be part of. That is an important point.
It is important to recognise a further political point, and I make no apology for making it. Earlier this week, Scottish Members and other hon. Members interested in the steel industry tried to put together an all-party approach to persuade British Steel to take steps to help the Scottish steel industry, particularly in view of the problems at Ravenscraig and Clydesdale. The SNP decided to boycott that meeting. It decided that it wanted to go it alone. As always, it was looking for an easy headline, just as it did by calling for a veto.
Last night, I attended a meeting called by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food presided over by him and attended by all Conservative Members with a constituency interest in fishing. The SNP, one of whose members has a vital constituency interest in fishing—a boat-building industry—attended that meeting. Its representatives did not walk out because Tory Members were involved. Their attitude is hypocritical and their approach is that of easy headlines. The SNP's remedy for the fishing industry would cause great damage to fishing and the House should reject it.

Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful to have the chance to make a few remarks towards the end of this short debate. My right hon. Friend the Minister has dealt effectively with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Gentleman can say that he wishes to increase quotas above the scientifically acceptable limits already laid down while at the same time calling for conservation. We have to stay within the scientific limits for at least the next year. Alongside quotas I sincerely hope that we can carry out at least some of the conservation measures suggested by various hon. Members today.
I represent the port of Fleetwood on the west coast of England, which has suffered greatly for many years as a result of the reduction in the British fishing industry. It has not enjoyed the recent prosperity north of the border. Nevertheless, the fishermen in my port recognise the need to rely on scientific evidence to decide the levels of fish catches. If a port which has suffered as much as mine has in the past can see that need, I hope that others, particularly those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, can also recognise it.
I fully support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) about the knock-on effect. It would be unfortunate if, as a result of what went on in the past, we saw the fish stocks off the west coast of Scotland and England being fished by people coming from the North sea.
It is important to look closely at how we shall achieve stability in our fishing industry. If possible, we must ensure that year on year we do not have continual reductions or increases in the amount of fish that our fishermen are allowed to catch. The long-term viability of our industry depends on stability. We need to do all that we can to refine and increase the accuracy of the scientific evidence on which our fish quotas are based. That is the main way forward.
In addition, we need conservation measures. In particular, will my right hon. Friend the Minister emphasise that we on the western side of England at least believe that industrial fishing should not have the priority that some member states want to give it? As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, it cuts across the right policy, which is to increase the amount of fish caught for human consumption.
I wish my right hon. Friend the Minister well when he goes to Brussels. I am certain that he will fight our case as strongly as possible, and I sincerely hope that he wilt return with a reasonable deal for all our fishermen throughout the British Isles.

Mr. Donald Dewar: We have had several knowledgeable speeches, and there can be no doubt about the anxiety expressed from all sides and every sector of the industry. It is common ground between us that the industry is not all of a piece and that many interests are involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) was right to mention the processing side. Inevitably, this evening the spotlight has been on the catching side of the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) made an important point about the pressure on the prawn fisheries in the Minch and the dangers of a knock-on effect. I have sympathy with the feeling that those particular grounds should be seen as a precious stock area and that consideration should be given to limiting the size and capacity of the fleet operating there.
We have concentrated, understandably, on the North sea. That is justified by the figures, the announcements from Brussels and the evidence of a cruel pressure which will inevitably grow within the industry over the next year or two. I share the doubts about the present operation of TACs. I accept entirely that there is justified criticism of the deal done with the Norwegians. I take the Minister's point that there is room to get something better, even within the present limits of scientific advice. Figures abound. It seems that scientific advice puts the figure for haddock at about 50,000 tonnes and the present TAC at about 43,000 tonnes. The gap for cod is between 113,000 tonnes and 97,000 tonnes for the EEC as a whole.
I am running rather quickly through the matters on which I can agree with the Government. I was pleased to hear the assurance on article 10, which is that, once quotas are exhausted, automatically other species cannot be fished. I was also pleased with footnote 51, which will enforce tie-up provisions of so many days a month on the fleet. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not noted for robust language, but his remark that this was not an area in which he could follow the Commission was a little perjinct. I should have liked something a little more encouraging from him in terms of going into battle.
I shall read carefully what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said. We cannot have a debate on it now, but I am not clear about the SNP position. I am not clear whether he is prepared to live with the logic of what he said—perhaps that is a fairer way of putting it. He seemed to advocate going well beyond what the scientific evidence suggests would be safe.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No, I am sorry. We can conduct this in another way. I shall just make my point.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to say that TACs had not been as effective as he would have liked. He drew from that the message that TACs could safely be ignored, as could scientific evidence. A rather more prudent man would have said that there were great difficulties with the TACs, that we must see how we can make them effective and ensure that they have the desired effect, and then gone on legitimately to talk about restructuring the fleet.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No. The hon. Gentleman has been up and down like the proverbial yo-yo and he spoke for almost 20


minutes, so he has had his quota. His TAC has been well and truly exceeded. [Interruption.] I can think of several scientific suggestions for the hon. Gentleman, but I shall not go into that. This is a serious debate and I take the hon. Gentleman's view seriously.
I do not intend in a speech that has only five minutes more to run to get into an academic and constitutional argument on the Luxembourg compromise. The hon. Gentleman is in the land of make-believe if he believes that the Luxembourg compromise could be effectively played on this occasion. He may have noted that there has been a slight local difficulty in European politics about monetary union, for example. Clearly, the Luxembourg compromise was not available. I accept that Ministers can be tough in the negotiations. Indeed, all Opposition Members expect that.
I have some sympathy with many of the other points made by the Minister and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. The Minister told us in trenchant terms that TACs and quotas were not enough. That is right. There is the problem of the discards, the whiting by-catch, industrial fishing and the increase in the tonnages there, to which several hon. Members referred. The Minister, having declared his own discontent with TACs and quotas as a solution in themselves, said that conservation was essential. He referred to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's views, which I endorse, and to the suggestion that there might be a one-net size on a boat. He suggested that possession of gear rather than proof of use might be an offence in itself and that enforcement rules should be changed. I hope that all that will be looked at sympathetically, as well as some of the other suggestions.
The trouble is that even that, together with TACs and quotas, is not enough. The Minister's speech was strangely incomplete. He tiptoed away from the whole question of a decommissioning policy. Attempts have been made to do something about capacity. In November, the Scottish Office produced a scheme for the consolidation of licences. If boats were to be replaced by new tonnage, the licence would be for only 90 per cent. of the total of the older boats going out of commission. That is a small step towards alleviating the problem.
The multi-annual guidance programme presents substantial reductions by 1992. We know that the market has not been working in that area. Despite all the industry's worries, capacity has been increasing while all these storm clouds have been gathering.
We must consider the decommissioning scheme seriously. I understand that there is already one in operation in Brussels. I do not know to what extent other nations use it. I think that the Danes and the Dutch have used it to some extent. As one person said to me today on the phone from Brussels, we are not "plugged in". I do not care whether we are plugged in. I am not even prepared to judge whether it is the right scheme.
Some scheme seems to be essential. If we do not have one, we shall have an illogical and painful process of change, as distinct from the planned, sensible and to some extent cushioned one which the industry deserves and which would come if we were to combine the attack, including the decommissioning scheme, on a wider scale than the Minister apparently envisages.
This is important. I do not make accusations of disunity in the Government, because I am not in a position to do so. However, I hope that there is at least a genuine debate taking place and I hope that the Secretary of State can say that the Government have not closed their mind to this possibility.
Debates in this Chamber are often heated. I accept that there are important interests—not merely constituency interests but much wider ones—at risk when we consider the future of the fishing industry. That is certainly true for Scotland. I do not want dramatics or bombast during this debate, but we are entitled to ask for determination when our negotitators go to Brussels on Monday. They should be determined to try to get the best possible deal to close the gap which certainly exists between the present TACs and the scientifically allowable levels. We also want a seriousness of intent and a willingness to move on conservation, and we want the Government to look actively and encouragingly at an adequate and flexible decommissioning scheme.
I entirely accept what was said at the start of the debate. The present crisis will generate pain for the industry, but it can be handled more sensibly than it has been in the past. The Government have a heavy responsibility to ensure that we make a much better fist of it over the next year or two.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I am happy to reply to this debate. In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) I should point out that I reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, not for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I should emphasise that over the years both Departments have done extremely well in the interests of British fishermen and no doubt they will continue to do so.
A great number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken in the debate. That illustrates the fact that so many parts of the country have an interest in fishing policy. However, even in the debate, the views of those from important parts of the United Kingdom such as East Anglia, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) was hoping to speak, have not been heard. It also illustrates, as the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) emphasised, the diversity of the fishing industry in Scotland, England and throughout the United Kingdom. It also emphasises that, at present, there is remarkable unanimity on the unacceptable nature of the European Commission's current proposals which have arisen particularly over the past week or so.
We thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) who has helped us in the tasks that we face in Brussels by emphasising that Her Majesty's Opposition share many of the beliefs of Her Majesty's Government. He has shown that we believe the proposals to be, in certain vital respects, unattractive and indefensible.
It was extraordinary that, without giving any good reason, the Commission has departed from the scientific advice that it received and put forward proposals—particularly relating to haddock and cod quotas in which


there will inevitably be major reductions—which were substantially less than the scientific evidence would have permitted.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister emphasised, it is difficult to see the justification in such difficult and unfortunate circumstances for the Commission putting forward proposals to Norway that would enhance its quota while the rest of the Community, for which the Commission is responsible, was expected to accept a severe reduction.
Quota management has also been mentioned. It is crucial to ensure that the Commission realises that its competence does not extend to the way in which national quotas are administered. That is, and must continue to be, a matter for national Governments.
In the short time available, I shall respond to some specific points made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) asked for an assurance that the Government will always press for scientifically based total allowable catches, even when these are higher than those proposed by the Commission. I am happy to give such an assurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) said that the Commission must produce convincing reasons for not accepting scientific advice. As yet, no such reasons have been forthcoming and we are entitled to expect them at the earliest opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) referred to the European Court's judgment and asked about its implications with regard to quota hopping. We have not yet had an opportunity to examine the text of the judgment, which was made only this morning. It appears that the court has found in favour of our basic proposition that there must be a substantial connection with the United Kingdom before vessels are entitled to benefit from our quota arrangements.
I share the astonishment of many hon. Members at the attitude of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). If I understood him correctly, he proposed that the United Kingdom's quota for haddock must be not less than 60,000 tonnes. The TAC for the Community must be substantially in excess of that, perhaps more than 70,000 tonnes, on the basis of the formula which he appears to identify. When we know that the scientists—not merely the Commission's scientists but our own scientists in the DAFS and the MAFF and elsewhere—agree that 50,000 is the largest safe figure consistent with the maintenance of stocks for the industry's future in Scotland and elsewhere in the Community, it becomes clear that the hon. Gentleman is behaving in a grossly irresponsible fashion.

Mr. Salmond: Does not the Secretary of State understand that if a new conservation policy is introduced, it should put a bottom line on the total allowable catch and the quota to avoid the perverse effects of low quotas, with fishermen flinging dead fish back into the North sea? Does he not appreciate that reasonably simple point?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that he is not speaking to a gullible audience in this House or when addressing the fishing industry. He knows perfectly well that conservation measures such as he suggests, even if they were desirable, could not be brought into effect in time to affect the quota for the next 12

months. I shall not waste the time of the House by pointing out what should be obvious to the hon. Gentleman and is certainly obvious to the fishing industry.
A number of hon. Members asked me for my views and the Government's views on the decommissioning scheme. I remind the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that he asked me the same question on 15 November during Question Time. Then, I referred to the severe criticism of a decommissioning scheme that was in effect in this country some years ago and the report on that of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.
In paragraph 6 of its report the Public Accounts Committee concluded:
We consider that decommissioning grants, licences and construction grants represented a series of interventions that conflicted with and distracted from market forces with unintended and unfortunate consequences.
We also know that, due to the various Community financial arrangements on United Kingdom distributions, the costs of such a scheme when we had one meant that of the total cost of £17·5 million, the United Kingdom provided £15 million, despite the nominal 50 per cent. contribution by the Community. Those are serious and damaging criticisms which we must take into account.
We must also ask to what extent the decommissioning scheme would address the serious problems facing the fishing industry. It would channel money to some fishermen who wanted to get out of the industry and would be attractive to those individuals. However, would it reduce the amount of fishing effort? In its 1987 report, the National Audit Office questioned whether the removal of vessels under the earlier scheme did anything to relieve the difficulties of the fishing quotas that were most under pressure. It would be difficult to target a scheme properly, as it is difficult in such circumstances for the Government to intervene effectively and precisely in an industry with so many active participants.

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I continue because I have only a couple of minutes left.
There are strong arguments against a new decommissioning scheme.

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry. I have only a couple of minutes.
I shall comment briefly on the conservation points that have been made. I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen who spoke strongly in favour of more effective conservation measures. The House is aware that the industry has moved in a constructive way towards recognising the need for conservation measures and, earlier this year, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation put forward important proposals designed to improve the conservation of stocks. They have three ingredients—the prohibition of attachments to fishing gear which have the effect of constricting meshes and thus retaining juvenile fish in the net, the banning of the carriage of nets of more than one mesh size on any one fishing trip and greater emphasis on enforcement, and the prohibition of the carriage of potentially illegal gear.
I was asked about a likely time scale for the implementation of new conservation measures. The consultation period in our proposals ends very soon and


we will be able to put the proposals to the Commission early in the new year. The pace of progress will then be in the hands of the Commission. We shall press the Commission hard for quick action. It is crucial that in putting forward these proposals we can point to the support that the industry has given to the need for enhanced conservation measures, and that enhances the prospect for early progress in that direction.
I endorse the comment by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) that we must take into account the interests of the industry in all parts of the country, including Scotland. That is crucial.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that he was looking for determination by the Government at the negotiations in Brussels. I assure him that such determination will be forthcoming. In putting forward our case not only to the Commission but to other Community countries, we will be strengthened by the strong support given by all hon. Members who pointed to the inadequacies in the current proposals and who emphasised the serious consequences for the British fishing industry if major improvements are not made. The House and the fishing industry can assume that we stand four square behind the need to give a fair deal to our industry. We intend to do that.

It being three hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [8 December], to put the Questions necessary to dispose of them.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 119.

Division No. 20]
[8.30 pm


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McFall, John


Battle, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Beith, A. J.
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morley, Elliot


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dewar, Donald
Robertson, George


Dixon, Don
Rooker, Jeff


Doran, Frank
Salmond, Alex


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spearing, Nigel


Gordon, Mildred
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wareing, Robert N.


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Henderson, Doug
Wilson, Brian


Home Robertson, John



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Johnston, Sir Russell
Mr. James Wallace and


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Malcolm Bruce.


Macdonald, Calum A.



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham


Amess, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amos, Alan
Buck, Sir Antony


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Atkinson, David
Butler, Chris


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butterfill, John


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carttiss, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowis, John
Cormack, Patrick





Couchman, James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Cran, James
Moate, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Monro, Sir Hector


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Day, Stephen
Neale, Gerrard


Dover, Den
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Durant, Tony
Norris, Steve


Emery, Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Evennett, David
Page, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Paice, James


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Fookes, Dame Janet
Redwood, John


Forth, Eric
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Freeman, Roger
Rhodes James, Robert


French, Douglas
Riddick, Graham


Gale, Roger
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Gardiner, George
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sackville, Hon Tom


Goodlad, Alastair
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gow, Ian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Shelton, Sir William


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hague, William
Sims, Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hannam, John
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Harris, David
Stern, Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Stevens, Lewis


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hunter, Andrew
Sumberg, David


Irvine, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Jack, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jessel, Toby
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knowles, Michael
Thorne, Neil


Lawrence, Ivan
Walden, George


Lightbown, David
Watts, John


Lord, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Maclean, David
Wiggin, Jerry


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Wilshire, David


Mans, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)



Maude, Hon Francis
Tellers for the Noes:


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Miller, Sir Hal
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Mills, Iain

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 2.

Division No. 21]
[8.45 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Cran, James


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Amos, Alan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arbuthnot, James
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dover, Den


Atkinson, David
Durant, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evennett, David


Bendall, Vivian
Fallon, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fishburn, John Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bright, Graham
Forth, Eric


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Freeman, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
French, Douglas


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gardiner, George


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Alastair


Chapman, Sydney
Gow, Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Couchman, James
Hague, William






Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Rhodes James, Robert


Harris, David
Riddick, Graham


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, David (Dover)


Irvine, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jack, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Jessel, Toby
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sims, Roger


Knowles, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lightbown, David
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maclean, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Summerson, Hugo


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miller, Sir Hal
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills, Iain
Thorne, Neil


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Walden, George


Moate, Roger
Watts, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Wells, Bowen


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Widdecombe, Ann


Neale, Gerrard
Wiggin, Jerry


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wilshire, David


Norris, Steve
Wood, Timothy


Page, Richard



Paice, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Porter, David (Waveney)
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Redwood, John
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Renton, Rt Hon Tim



NOES


Salmond, Alex
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Andrew Welsh and



Mrs. Margaret Ewing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 12th December 1989 and Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 13th December 1989 on Total Allowable Catches and Quotas for 1990, its un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 13th December 1989 on the Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement between the Community and Norway for 1990, European Community Document No. 9888/89 on fishery guide prices, and of the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1990 consistent with the requirement for conservation of the fishing stock.

Orders of the Day — Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Roger Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising a point of order now, but I wonder whether it would be helpful to the House to have your guidance on how this and succeeding debates, which are on a related matter, are to be conducted. I think that it would be in the interests of the House to hear hon. Members speak as infrequently as possible on the subject, but some might be tempted to speak on Second Reading and on the motions that are to follow it. I wonder whether it might be possible to learn whether you would be tolerant of hon. Members restricting themselves to just one speech in this debate, thereby saving the time and patience of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. While the subsequent motions are separate, they could be construed as being related. It might be sensible to see how we get on and for me to take account of the advice offered by the hon. Gentleman.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill is part of a package of measures to promote greater competition and consumer choice in the supply of beer. It will give tenants of pubs the same protection as it gives to other business tenants under part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
The Bill arises from a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of beer, which was published on 21 March of this year. It found that a complex monopoly existed in favour of the brewers with tied estates. This complex monopoly restricts competition at all levels by protecting brewers from competition in supplying their managed and tenanted estates because other brewers do not have access to them.
On 10 July, the Government announced a series of measures to remedy the public interest detriments identified by the MMC. The Bill forms part of the Government's response to the MMC report. Other measures are being implemented through orders under the Fair Trading Act, 1973, which hon. Members will have an opportunity to debate later this evening.
The starting point for considering this Bill is the MMC report and its recommendations. In its report, the MMC said:
tenants of on-licensed premises are not, under the present arrangements, able fully to act as independent businessmen. We therefore consider that it is essential that a tenant's interest in on-licensed premises should be legally protected.
It recommended in consequence that the interests of all tenants of on-licensed premises should be brought within the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. whether the premises were subject to a tie or not. The Bill is addressed to this recommendation.
The MMC also outlined a number of further measures to increase tenants' security. They included, in respect of tenants of licensed premises, disapplying the provision in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 that allows parties to an agreement to agree to apply to the court to contract out of the Act, and a recommendation that the Director General of Fair Trading renegotiate the current Brewers Society's code of practice with all interested parties. The code would then be given some mandatory status.
Following publication of the MMC's report, the Government recognised that, like any radical proposals, the MMC's recommendations could have consequences that could not be anticipated, and that they were best explored in public debate. The Government therefore listened to representations from all shades of opinion, including the Brewers Society, individual brewers, representative organisations of licensed trade tenants and managers, individual tenants, consumer associations, members of the public, and, of course, hon. Members.
It became clear as a result of that process of hearing representations that the issue with tenants' security was how to increase protection without making the tenancy system so unattractive commercially that it would be killed off. The Government concluded that it would not be right to set up a special class of tenancy under the Act just for licensed premises. It is therefore intended that licensed tenants should simply be placed on all fours with other business tenants, and that it should remain for the parties concerned to decide whether it is in their commercial interests to forgo their statutory rights.
Similarly, the Government concluded that a mandatory code of practice was inappropriate. The brewers have said that they are prepared to accept the present proposals on tenants' security. The National Licensed Victuallers Association too, while continuing to press for more extensive security for tenants, has made it clear to us that the inclusion of licensed tenants within the Act is the key, and it is pressing for its earliest adoption.
Although I cannot agree to all that the tenants seek, I want to assure them and their representatives that we do understand and appreciate the difficulties that many of them face. Nobody likes paying higher rents or having their tenancies terminated against their will, but we cannot solve such problems by legislating. Pub tenancies, like rented property or any other form of asset, are part of a market, with terms governed by supply and demand. A pub tenancy agreement is the result of a commercial negotiation, and while we can set out what are fair procedures for reaching agreement we cannot force the agreement to be more or less favourable to one side than what the market dictates. Our proposals therefore represent a balance, as carefully struck as the balance in the Act itself. That has been shown over 35 years to be workable.
I should like to describe briefly how part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act works. Essentially, it sets out rules for both landlords and tenants of business premises with regard to the beginning and ending of tenancy agreements. Under these rules, if a tenant has paid the agreed rent on time and complied with the tenancy agreement, the landlord can bring the tenancy to an end at or after the end of the current tenancy only by serving the tenant with a notice of termination.
Upon receipt of the notice, the tenant has the right to apply to the court for a new tenancy, which it is bound to grant unless the landlord can show grounds for being granted possession. Such grounds include failure by the tenant to comply with the conditions of the tenancy or the fact that the landlord wishes to occupy the premises himself for the purposes of running a business, a residence or to reconstruct the premises.
Currently, section 43(1)(d) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, part II, serves to exclude licensed tenants. We are proposing that section 43(1)(d) should be repealed. We are additionally proposing to repeal paragraph 5 of schedule 2 to the Finance Act 1959, which substituted a new paragraph for the original section 43(1)(d). As a matter of keeping the statute book tidy, it should also be repealed.
The transitional provisions are intended to ensure that tenancies agreed before 11 July 1989 are unaffected if they end before 11 July 1992. Most brewery tenancies are for terms of three years, and the Act will apply in those cases only when a new tenancy is agreed. The significance of the 1992 date is that it is exactly three years after the 10 July 1989 statement. Clause 1(3) provides that, where the Landlord and Tenant Act provides for statutory notices to be given by a landlord or a tenant, these notices can be validly served before July 1992, where appropriate.
As I have suggested, the Bill represents a carefully struck balance between the interests of tenants and those of their landlords, who are in most cases brewers. In this, the approach mirrors the one we have taken with all the measures to deal with the MMC's findings. Some hon. Members will feel that we should have gone further. Others, I know, will argue later this evening that we have gone too far, and that the measures are an unnecessary intervention in the market.
I would urge hon. Members in both these camps to recognise that, while the package of measures will not satisfy everyone, it achieves a balance between the conflicting interests involved. Tenants will have greater freedom to buy products that meet their customers' preferences, and they will be able to do so at competitive prices. They will also have the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act. Consumers will benefit from this greater freedom on the part of tenants. They will be beneficiaries of the more open and competitive market that we shall see in beer and other drinks.
Brewers and pub owners will also benefit. The long-term success of their industry depends on creating an environment in which a wide range of products that people want to buy can be offered at prices people believe are competitive.

Mr. Doug Henderson: The Opposition support the principle behind the Bill but we believe that the Bill has major flaws and we shall seek to amend and modify it as it passes through its various stages of consideration. We want to give the Bill a backbone so that it can make a real contribution to improving competition in the industry and protecting the 33,000 tenant landlords of Britain's pubs. Our support follows the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of beer, which we welcomed some months ago as a useful and long overdue report on monopoly practices in the supply of beer.
Tenant landlords know that there is a monopoly every time they are threatened with increased rents or a loss of tenancy, or are forced to accept the brewer's tied products. The consumers—regulars and even weekend punters—know that there is a monopoly every time that they pay over the top for lager, every time they cannot get a cask beer and every time they are forced to buy a brewer's soft drinks. The Consumers Association estimates that the average price of a pint of orange juice in an English pub is £2. The Secretary of State knows that people in Northumberland shudder—perhaps it is the same in the west country—when it is their round and their friends want a soft drink. Workers know that there is a monopoly every time the brewery is threatened with rationalisation and every time the company is threatened with a takeover.

Mr. James Couchman: I know that the price of soft drinks is of great concern and causes dismay among those who use public houses, but the overheads that accrue in serving a whisky and those that accrue in serving a soft drink are precisely the same for the person serving them.

Mr. Henderson: That may well be so, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned it, but I do not think that it is central to the point about competition in the industry.
The Opposition, like the tenant landlords, the consumers and the work people, agree with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that a complex monopoly exists in the supply of beer. We shall discuss that in greater detail in our next debate. I hope that at that stage I can show that the orders fail to tackle the real measures required to bring competition to the industry. It is in that context that the Bill should be debated.
I wholeheartedly agree that the Bill is necessary, not only to protect tenants but to protect the industry from monopoly pressures, and thereby to protect consumers. We have all had our arguments with pub governors in our time, and no doubt won very few of them. Perhaps that is why the public ask, "What has protecting pub governors to do with guaranteeing competition in the industry? Are they not the same people who overcharge us and often restrict our choice of beer?" They are the same people, but they are not ultimately responsible because they are not the ultimate governors. Hon. Members know, and I hope that the Government recognise, that one of the principal ways that breweries control the industry and reinforce the monopoly is by tying tenant landlords to taking their beer. If the tenant has no security and if he is forced into the pocket of the brewery, ultimately the consumer will suffer.
The Opposition firmly believe in a competitive environment in the brewing industry and the supply of beer. We back the consumer and we welcome the opportunity to debate the Bill. In the past, Governments have rejected legislative controls and there has always been a powerful lobby against them. Now, the brewers' arguments against legislation have been shown to be spurious. Indeed, in their evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the brewers argued that the relationship between a landlord and a tenant was special and that the rental terms were at a discount as a condition of the tie. If the tenant lost his licence, perhaps for some criminal offence, how could the brewery get that person to leave his premises? That sort of argument might be defensible if there was an agreement that the monopoly should continue, but if we are to go down the road of

encouraging competition—I hope that that is the Government's intention—and if we are to break, or at least to loosen, the tie, the brewers' arguments have no basis. Without a tie, the first thing that the brewers will do is to put rents up. In any case, their ability to protect their interests in relation to someone who may be justifiably dismissed for some felony could still be protected through a code of practice.
The National Licensed Victuallers Association has a major interest in the Bill. On numerous past occasions, including when giving evidence to the Monopolies arid Mergers Commission, it has insisted that it needs a legislative shield to protect its members against excessive rent increases. In its evidence to the commission it cites a number of cases. A tenant in Kent complained that after agreement had been reached for alterations at a cost of £35,000, the brewer wanted to increase the landlord's rent by 200 per cent. to £11,000 per year. On top of that, the tenant would also have to fund the cost of furnishings, recarpeting and new fittings. He said that the new rent level represented the equivalent of 13·75 per cent. of his turnover. The association also cited the case of a tenant in Berkshire who complained about high rent increases. In particular, he complained about an increase of 208 per cent. after the public house had been refurbished and about the practice of increasing rent in line with barrelage. He said that the brewer's representative had told him that his rent might be further increased if he did not purchase soft drinks from the brewer. He also complained about the wine and spirits tie which made retail prices higher than they need be. Those are but two of hundreds of examples which occur throughout Britain because of the weak bargaining position of tenant landlords in relation to rent increases.
The association argues that the voluntary code of practice is completely ineffective and that if a tenant wishes to challenge the decision of a brewery, the costs of doing so, even within the code of practice, are prohibitive. The association has also shown that tenants who have built up a business can end up with little or no compensation if a brewery disposes of a public house. It cites the example of a tenant in central London who had been given notice to quit the house which he had run successfully for 12 years. The tenant told the association that no suitable alternative premises were offered. In fact, his request for a suitable alternative was met with a refusal. The brewer offered the minimum compensation payable under the code, which would largely be used for redundancy payments to his long-serving staff. The tenant suggested that the motive for the brewer's action was based solely on the value of the site for redevelopment.
The case for legislative protection is overwhelming, but there are major weaknesses in the Bill. The Secretary of State alluded to some of them. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, as amended by the Law of Property Act 1969, landlords and tenants can mutually exclude themselves from the terms of the Act by making an application to the court. The evidence submitted by the tenants' association is that in the overwhelming number of cases the court accepts the joint application. The National Licensed Victuallers Association has argued that that is completely inappropriate for governing the relationship between brewers and landlords. If there is an exclusion clause, the brewer will say to the tenant, "If you don't


accept such a clause your future might not be so bright as you imagine when you next seek to review your tenancy." That is the evidence from the people involved.
Does the Secretary of State accept that that could be the case? Does he accept that poor Bet and Alec Gilroy could be in trouble in the Rovers Return or that Pat and Frank could be saying goodbye to the Queen Vic if they do not agree to an exclusion clause? All of us know that they have enough troubles without having the Secretary of State adding to them with this legislation which is supposed to help them. Does the Secretary of State accept that, in a world of ever-tightening margins and international competition, pressure will be put on landlords to opt out? If he accepts that that will be the case, does he also acknowledge that it will undermine the whole purpose of the Bill? Will the Government make proposals to meet that major problem?
Why have the Government not recognised that the timing of the Bill is too slow? If it lets off the hook most tenancies expiring before 1992, brewers will simply terminate tenancies so as to avoid the Bill's effects. Will the Secretary of State not recognise that a code of practice is necessary as an adjunct to the Bill? Is he aware that most tenants believe that the existing voluntary code is unworkable and that the brewers are unchallengeable? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the introduction of a code of practice during the progress of the Bill?
The Government claim to believe in private ownership. If that is so—I do not suggest for one moment that it is not —why have they failed to introduce the right to buy for pub tenants? Partly because of the current market situation, partly in an attempt to avoid the legislation, and partly in anticipation of some of the matters that we shall be debating later today, brewers will try to dispose of some of their tenanted houses. In fact, in my own area in the north-east Scottish and Newcastle Breweries announced only last week the sale of 250 of its premises.
If council tenants have the right to buy council assets, why should not brewers' tenants, who have shown a deep commitment to their businesses and who have built up much goodwill in their houses, have the right to buy brewers' assets? Surely Scottish and Newcastle Breweries public house tenants should have the first right to purchase their tenanted houses and to protect their livelihoods. Or does the principle of a property-owning democracy not apply when those who should comply are contributors to Conservative party funds?
Another worrying aspect of the Bill is the exclusion of Scotland from its provisions. The level of brewery-owned tenancies in Scotland is lower than in England and Wales, but about 750 tenanted houses will still be at risk. Will the Secretary of State consider inserting into the Bill protection for Scottish tenant landlords? Those matters are all of concern to tenant publicans, and if they believe that those shortcomings weaken the Bill and their protection, the public at large should also be worried. If the tenants' position is undermined, competition will also be undermined. If competition is undermined, public and consumer interest will also be undermined.
I described five main objections to the terms of the Bill, but it has merit of purpose, and on that basis the Opposition will not seek to block its Second Reading. I have no doubt, however, that the Bill in its current form

would fail to achieve its purpose—to offer landlords the necessary protection—or to make a lasting contribution to improving competition in the industry. I hope that the Secretary of State will examine all the issues and seek to strengthen the Bill before it returns to this Chamber. If the Secretary of State is receptive in Committee, he may continue to receive the wider support of the whole House when the Bill returns here.

Mr. Roger Moate: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) gave a grudging welcome to a Bill that I thought had received almost universal acceptance throughout the industry. I welcome the Bill largely because it is a generally agreed measure.
It is something of a disappointment to me that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs felt unable to translate the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into a series of voluntary agreements, which I believe were on offer and would have been immensely beneficial to all concerned in a great industry. None the less, the Bill that we are debating this evening has been welcomed by all concerned —with the exception of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. Certainly most of us accept the argument for greater security for tenants, and we welcome the fact that that has been agreed with the brewers.
Having said that, I must add that I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to have his cake and eat it. He said that the Opposition broadly welcomed the MMC report; if that is the case, the Opposition would have done more damage to the tenants whom they now claim to defend than any of the minor factors cited by the hon. Gentleman.
I regret the introduction of this package of proposals, which I believe will do serious harm to every aspect of the industry. They may provide protection for tenants, but there will be fewer and fewer tenants, and that will mean a major loss not only for the tenants themselves but for the whole cause of small business. This package of restrictions will cause a gradual decline in a tenancy system which in the past has proved a splendid way for small business men to build their own businesses, often with limited resources.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the lessons are never learned. Let us go back to the simplest relationship between landlord and tenant—that covered by the Rent Acts. We know that there are no properties to rent; similarly, the more the agricultural tenant is protected, the fewer farms there are to rent. It is utter hypocrisy for the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North to suggest that the proposals will improve the position of tenants: in fact, fewer and fewer brewers will be prepared to offer the partnerships that are currently offered so widely.

Mr. Moate: Indeed, the sad logical consequence of the MMC report is that we shall end up with fewer pubs owned by the brewers, and of those many will be managed rather than tenanted. Nevertheless, we welcome the increased security: there are many arguments for it.
In my constituency—and, I believe, in many others—the views expressed by the trade unions, which Labour sometimes claims to represent, have been totally at variance with the stance adopted by the hon. Gentleman


and his colleagues. When the MMC report was published, I was concerned not for a specific sector—the large national brewers, the regional brewers, the smaller brewers or individual publicans—but for the industry collectively. I felt that the proposals would damage jobs in one of our greatest and most successful industries. The proposals that the Opposition Front Bench has supported were opposed by the Transport and General Workers Union, particularly in my area, and any loss of jobs will be in part due to the remarks of Opposition Members.
The hon. Gentleman is fundamentally wrong. The view that he propounded—that some tenants are unhappy with the terms imposed by their landlords, and that that implies a monopoly—is simply nonsense. Commercial partnerships often involve unequal relationships, but the fact that a tenant does not like the terms of a contract, or would rather buy elsewhere, while it may call that particular relationship into question, does not suggest the existence of a monopoly.
The hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—mentioned the allegation that a complex monopoly was in operation. There has been considerable debate about whether that term has any meaning; indeed, it has been suggested that it is a technical concept that people latched on to with the purpose of bringing this subject within the competence of the MMC. Certainly it does not conform with the view of the man in the street about what constitutes a monopoly. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that point, because we do not want the MMC in future to dredge up a "complex monopoly" in the absence of other obvious public detriments so that it can make recommendations that the House, for one reason or another, feels obliged to follow through. I should like to see that concept eliminated: a monopoly either exists or does not exist.
In my view—and, I believe, in that of any fair-minded person—the brewing industry in this country is highly competitive. There is little evidence of consumer dissatisfaction with the brewing industry. Beer prices are generally low compared with those in almost every other country. The quality of pubs has improved dramatically in the past few years and they have made a major contribution to our leisure industry. More than 440,000 people are employed in one of our most successful industries.
Against that background, the MMC report made its wide-ranging attack on a supposed monopoly. Are we not foolish to be inflicting damage on one of our most successful industries, which is far more competitive than those in almost every country of Europe with which we are supposedly in competition? For that reason, we are being extraordinarily foolish in accepting this package of measures so blithely. That may sound ungrateful, but I do believe that the package, including the Bill and the other measures, is a dramatic improvement on the original recommendations. I realise that I have sounded churlish, so I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, because they have been receptive and flexible. I make those comments now, as I intend to vote against the draft Supply of Beer (Tied Estates) Order 1989 later tonight. However, although I think that the order is bad, I welcome the rest of the package and the tremendous improvements that have been introduced.
Some bad consequences will flow from the whole package which will become visible not in years, but in months. We shall see a concentration in brewing. Many of our brewers will amalgamate or be taken over, some into foreign ownership. We shall see a reduction in the number of pubs, the sale of pubs—ultimately, some may move out of serving the public—and fewer tenanted pubs. Those consequences will flow directly from the MMC report and partly from the recommendations tonight.
I want to put on record, as the House should, the fact that this package is a bad move for British industry, for British brewing and for the public. The other result of all the measures will be higher rather than lower prices for the consumer. The object of introducing anti-monopoly measures is to try to obtain a better deal for the consumer, but there is no evidence that consumers were paying too high a price for beer. One judgment of a monopoly is that the producers were making excessive profits, but that was not alleged in the MMC report. Is it not extraordinary that we are faced with these recommendations and that it has been decided to implement them? Higher prices will result.
If we force the brewers to change from tenancy to management in many cases, they will become, in effect, property owners and will no longer use pubs as retail outlets. The breweries will no longer be interested in beer production or beer retailing, but will move out or will be obliged to charge far higher rents to tenants and higher prices to the consumer. That will be the net result of the extraordinary intervention of the MMC.
Is it not extraordinary that the MMC—and I stress again that the Bill arises from the recommendations of the MMC investigation—made no reference to the experience abroad. The Australians went through this exercise and the result was a dramatic increase in beer prices. Beer production became concentrated to the extent that two brewers control 98 per cent. of production. That is what came of breaking the tie. How can that be defended? Yet that is the road that we are supposed to be taking. We have more competition than in almost any other country. As I have said, in Australia, two brewers control 98 per cent. of production. In Japan, four brewers control 99 per cent., in the Netherlands, four brewers control 95 per cent. and in France, four brewers control 93 per cent. Yet here we need to consider four brewers to arrive at a figure of 58 per cent. of the market.
We have a highly competitive industry. There is a large number of regional brewers and small brewers. There is a total of 66 sizeable brewing companies. There will be fewer and fewer brewing companies as a result of the proposals. I deeply regret that. I deeply regret also the fact that we were not able to reject the MMC report in its entirety, because it will be bad for business, the industry, jobs, and the consumer.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I declare that I am the parliamentary adviser to the National Licensed Victuallers Association. I must disagree with almost everything that we have heard from the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). He seems to think that brewery companies are charitable institutions which are only too anxious to provide their tenants with all the protection for which they could possibly ask on the basis on voluntary agreements The lessons of history are against him. As for the latter part of his remarks, I cannot believe that a brewery


company cannot stay in business with fewer than 2,000 pubs. It is not logical to suggest that the proposal that will be debated tonight will put brewery companies out of business.
The Bill is warmly welcomed by the National Licensed Victuallers Association and its members. It is a long-overdue reform. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said, it does not go as far as it should. The voluntary code of practice has been of some value, but it does not alter the fact that there have been far too many cases of tenants being treated disgracefully by pub owners—not always brewers by any means, but the people who own their public houses. The trend towards ownership by companies other than brewers will be accelerated as a result of the orders. Bearing in mind that, in any case, the code of practice is subscribed to only by the Brewers Society and the NLVA and that people outside the Brewers Society are not covered by it at all, the need for a Bill of this kind, which provides a measure of protection for all tenants, irrespective of who owns the pub in question, is particularly important.
I do not intend to regale the House with a long rigmarole of horror stories, but I will mention just one or two examples. One of the worst in recent times concerns a licensee in Lancashire who won some cans of lager in a raffle. They were presented to him by the area manager of his brewery company, who said that he could drink them or sell them as he wished. Being a decent man, the licensee decided to sell them at £1 a can in aid of an excellent charity, cancer research. It seemed a sensible and reasonable thing to do. When the head brewer found out about it, the licensee was called to the brewery office and handed his notice to quit because he had been selling lager that had not been supplied to him for that purpose by his landlord, the brewery company.
There was a long argument. The NLVA's legal advisers were brought in , but eventually the man who had been the licensee of the pub for 14 years finished up out on the street with a derisory amount of compensation. That is one particularly disgraceful example, but there are many other equally disgraceful stories.
Recently in the south of England, a licensee—a woman, as it happens—who has been paying rent of £13,000 a year for a pub which is in great need of repair and improvement has been offered a 20-yar lease by her brewery company landlord—one of the big six; not a small regional outfit —which is part of its policy. Many people will guess that I am referring to Grand Metropolitan. It is a full repairing lease, which provides for total responsibility for all the money that has to be spent on the pub at a rent of £40,000 a year, which is just over three times what she is paying now.
In my constituency, a licensee of a small Victorian pub —a nice little place where I have been known to have a pint or two myself—was told by his landlords, a company that is expanding fast in the leisure industry not in brewing, that it wished to sell the premises. He was invited—at least, he expressed his wish—to make an offer. He did so and was told by the owners' representatives that if he increased it a little, it would be enough to clinch the deal. In fact, he increased it substantially to well above the local valuation. It is alleged that the owners let his rival bidder know the

amount of his bid. The rival bidder then put in a slightly higher offer and the first that the licensee heard of the result was when the other man walked into his premises and said, "I've bought your pub." That happened just a few weeks ago—not a very nice Christmas present for any licensee.
However, at least that man was invited or allowed to put in an offer for his own pub. Even that has not been permitted for the tenants of Scottish and Newcastle, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North referred. Scottish and Newcastle has decided to sell 250 pubs without allowing the tenants the chance to put in bids to buy them. Scottish and Newcastle is selling them to bring itself below the level that would render it liable to various responsibilities under the orders that we shall be debating later. Surely it would have been reasonable to allow the tenants to put in an offer for the premises in which they make their livings. Although I should have thought that reasonable, there is no obligation on the landlord companies to do so, and they have not done it.
While licensed tenants appreciate the protection that the Bill will afford them under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the provisions do not take account of the unique features of the licensed trade—features that do not apply to other kinds of business tenancies. The most important is the fact that for the vast majority of licensees their pub is not only their business, but their home. If, because of some capricious decision by the owners of the premises, they lose their business, they also become homeless. That in itself is sufficient reason for giving them special treatment, which would not necessarily apply to other business premises.
At the very minimum, it would be reasonable if the Bill provided for some of the MMC's recommendations, which the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Lord Young, said that he was minded to implement. I refer especially to the M MC recommendation that there should be a provision in every tenancy agreement such that
the brewer/landlord shall not be permitted to take back the premises for the purposes of installing his own manager if the licensee/tenant wishes to continue in business at the premises on terms agreed (or in default of agreement as determined by the court)".
That proposal seems eminently reasonable. It would need only a small amendment to the Bill, possibly in the form of a schedule, to require those provisions to be written into tenancy agreements. I can see nothing wrong with that. At the moment there is nothing to protect a tenant from being put out of his pub by the owners so that they can install a manager. The compensation payable in such circumstances is derisory. As I understand it—I may be corrected on this by the Secretary of State—even with the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act, the only compensation statutorily required would be six times the rateable value.
Although this has not yet been mentioned, we must bear in mind the fact that the goodwill in the business does not vest in the tenant; it is held by the brewery company. A tenant who has devoted a great deal of work to building up a successful business does not have equity in the sense of goodwill in the event of the business being transferred. That is a serious matter. It is nothing new. A former right hon. Member, one Mr. Gladstone, told the House about it a long time ago on 5 March 1880. He said:


As to compensation, the licensed victualler ought to be dealt with on the same principle as every other class in regard to which a vested interest has been permitted to grow up.
That has not happened. Compensation for a licensed victualler who loses his business is not based on the same principle as the other classes referred to by Mr. Gladstone. A few months later he called for equitable compensation. Such a provison should be written into the Bill, which is intended to provide some form of protection for occupants of licensed premises.
We must bear it in mind that an owner is unlikely to take back most types of premises covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act to put in his own manager because of the nature of the business. For example, the owner of a grocery shop is unlikely to be in the grocery business himself. It is unlikely that he will put out the tenant in order to put in a manager. It takes only a moment's thought to appreciate that that applies to many other types of business premises. The owner of a public house is likely to be in that sort of business and, if the tenant has built up a flourishing business, may wish to get rid of the tenant to put in a manager. Tenants rightly feel that they should be provided with that sort of protection under the Bill.
It is unfortunate that the Government have not been persuaded that such protection is needed. When the Secretary of State says that the problems cannot be solved by legislating, I am bound to say that I disagree. The Opposition will seek provisions to solve the problems during the progress of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North referred to another great weakness in the Bill. It is the proposal to allow contracting out, as provided for in relation to other premises covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act. The MMC was right to suggest that contracting out should not be allowed in this case because of the special circumstances of licensed premises. It said:
We recommend there should be no right on the part of the parties to contract out of the provisions contained in Part 11 of that Act, except for a preliminary period not exceeding one year. This exception is solely to allow a probationary period for a new tenant to establish the satisfactory nature of his abilities.
Again, that is a reasonable suggestion.
It is unfortunate that that important recommendation has been rejected by the Government. I do not wish to repeat my hon. Friend's remarks, but contracting out could defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. When negotiating a tenancy, an owner of a public house, whether a brewery or other company, could say to a prospective tenant, "You will join me in going to court to apply for us to be contracted out of the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act". The prospective tenant will say, "No, I would like the provisions of the Act made by Parliament on my behalf to apply to me". The owner will then find someone else who is willing to contract out. As time goes by we may find that the new protection which the Bill is supposed to provide will be used less and less because the owners of the premises decide that they are not prepared to let their premises to someone who will not join them in applying to the court to contract out of the protection of the Act.
Tenant licensees are appreciative that the Government are introducing a Bill to bring them within the terms of the Landlord and Tenant Act. They are grateful to the Secretary of State for what he is doing. If he would go just that bit further and close those loopholes, he would earn their undying gratitude.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) said.
For more than 30 years, part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 has unquestionably served business premises and leasing well. The Act has stood the test of time and proved to be excellent. However, many people in licensed premises—I have known some personally—who have gone into a broken-down public house and built up the business find, perhaps at the second rent review after five or six years, that for improving the sales of the company's liquor and other products, they face a huge rent increase. That does not occur in any other business areas which come within the terms of the 1954 Act.
Under the terms of the Act, if agreement cannot be reached on the rental the matter goes to the courts. That is a perfectly right and fair way to proceed. Years ago there was no voluntary code of practice for licensed tenants of public houses. It has been formulated over recent years. For many years I have been in favour of this type of legislation because it is entirely wrong that licensees of public houses should be treated differently from anyone else in business. For that reason I am sure that the House welcomes the Bill.
Part II of the present Act lists exceptions in which a landlord can gain possession, and I see nothing wrong with them except in one case. It is right that a landlord should gain possession, for example, before a comprehensive redevelopment. But that can be covered by the licensee getting the right sort of compensation. The management area worries me. It is a technical area and we must understand it. As the hon. Member for Rotherham rightly said, when the .lease of a business premises runs out, the landlord can step in and run it as his own business, thus gaining possession. If a brewery puts in a manager, is that the same as running one's own business? It is not strictly the same. The Committee must give careful consideration to that point. It must ask itself whether the management should lose that right, so that there is continuity for the lessee. In normal business, one can assign a lease on business premises. I wonder whether that should happen in this case.
If the management has to stay at the end of the lease, the only other alternative is to give substantial compensation which takes account of goodwill. There is no doubt that a couple can go to work in a pub and the wife can work extremely hard on the food side to build up a business which is going very well, and then the couple can find that they have nothing. They will have lost not only their home, but an immense amount of goodwill which they had built up over a great number of years. That is morally wrong and it happens nowhere else in business. I hope that the Committee will address itself to that problem, because it is a matter of grave concern. Although I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly, if we are to give the proper protection, we must deal properly with that area in Committee.
I know that many of my colleagues want to speak tonight, so I shall merely refer to one other matter: the code of practice. The right place to decide the rental is the court. That should not be done by any code of practice set up outside but, as part II of the 1954 Act states, when a rental cannot be properly agreed, the matter should go to the courts.
If we can resolve the small issue relating to management when we discuss the Bill in Committee, I sincerely hope that we can start to create not more managements, but more tenancies. I have often seen a public house which is built up by a tenant but, when changed over to management, starts to deteriorate rapidly. If we want to encourage the small business man, as the Conservative party has said over and over again that it does, the right way to do so is to give him the right protection within a tenancy.

Mr. Alistair Burt: I shall begin with a declaration of interest which came about in a curious way. About three years ago I first became involved with tenants in my constituency who had problems with breweries. I was then a consultant to a firm of London solicitors called Watts, Valiance and Valiance. Two months ago, in October this year, that firm amalgamated with another and by a complete coincidence that firm, now known as Valiance Lickfords, is the firm retained by the National Licensed Victuallers Association. Therefore, although I have never done any paid work for the NLVA, I have an indirect connection with it because I am a consultant to the firm of solicitors which acts for the National Licensed Victuallers Association. I felt it right to declare that interest right from the start.
I am drawn to speak in the debate because of my concern about relationships in the brewery industry. Like all hon. Members, I welcome the fact that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is to be extended to licensed premises. However, I share the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Bill may be seen as a halfway house because it does not go far enough to secure the better relationships in the industry which it is designed to bolster and support.
About three years ago, I first became aware of concern in tenancies in my constituency about the way in which breweries were behaving. Since then, my appreciation of what is happening in my constituency suggests that some breweries behave extremely well towards their tenants while others behave poorly. It was because of that mixture of relationships and behaviour that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission made its recommendations. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) suggested, life could be sorted without legislation, it would be a lot sweeter and better than it is. Alas, however, we cannot in all circumstances rely on those with greater power than others to use that power fairly.
In my investigations of the relationships in the industry in my constituency I am most concerned about the inequality of bargaining power between brewers and tenants. I welcome the Bill because to some extent it redresses that inequality of bargaining power, but it does not go far enough.
I have been greatly helped in investigations in my constituency by Mr. Peter Roberts, chairman of the local branch of the National Licensed Victuallers Association and owner of the Grant's Arms in Ramsbottom. He and his colleagues were enormously helpful in taking me through the trade and in preparing some of the concerns which I shall express. Before I became so closely interested in the subject, I did not appreciate that relations between

some tenants and brewers were so bad. Many people who go into pubs do not appreciate that behind the pumps all is not so cheerful as it appears. Some of that is caused by sharp practices on the part of the breweries. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) gave examples of tenants who had worked extremely hard in the pub in which they were living and then found that as a result of their hard work the rents were increased and, effectively, money was taken from them.
There are other sources of concern which are not immediately apparent on the face of the Bill. It is not widely known that the provision of machines such as juke boxes or one-armed bandits, which many people enjoy using when they go into a pub, do not necessarily provide profit for the tenant. The tenant may have taken the trouble to have such machines installed to increase the amount of enjoyment in his pub, but the brewer takes a considerable rake-off without having done anything at all. Such matters make tenants feel that they are not being fairly dealt with. Such worries were set out in the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and that has led to legislation rather than to a voluntary code of conduct.
I quote briefly from the Morning Advertiser of 7 July to show why it was important to have certain provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 incorporated in the Bill so as to protect tenants. It says:
If their landlord wants to take their pub into direct management because they have built it up so successfully, he can.
If their landlord wants to take a bigger slice of their income as rent—again, because of their success—he can.
If their landlord wants to introduce arbitrary and sweeping changes to the nature of the tenancy agreement, he can.
Can this be justice? Of course it can't, and now at last you
—that is, the Government—
are in a position to do something about it by altering the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to protect pub tenants.
Such sentiments have led to the Bill. The Bill is needed and I welcome it.
I wish to direct the Minister's attention to one or two matters which should be examined in Committee. I share the concerns expressed by some hon. Members about contracting out. It is clear from what hon. Members have said that there is genuine inequality of bargaining power. Those who wish to become tenants of pubs may seek to sign an agreement. They may be told by the brewery that unless they agree to contracting out they will not be allowed to sign and that there is another person in the corridor who is even more anxious to become a tenant. The attitude is that if the prospective tenant does not wish to contract out, there are plenty more applicants waiting.
One of the great tragedies in the industry is that many people imagine that they should spend their life as pub tenants, and sometimes they want to do that so badly that they do not read between the lines and appreciate everything that they are signing. The trade must do something about that. There should be better training and instruction, and breweries could help a little by preparing tenants for what they will have to face. At the end of the day, inequality of bargaining power is not always dealt with in that way. If contracting out is not possible, the protection desired by the Bill and the Government may not come about. I should be grateful if the Minister would look at that again.
I share the concerns expressed about management and I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said about that. I also share the concern about the date on which the Bill will come into effect. It would be better to have it as early as possible; 1992 is too late and the brewers may take unfair advantage of that. Perhaps I could suggest a way forward. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues would look carefully in Committee at the defects of the Bill that have been mentioned. There is great good will for the measure and there is wide understanding of the great importance of the brewery industry in this country.
In many ways and in many places, the system works perfectly well. We are trying to make a good system work better, and to ensure that the poor relationships in the industry, which would ultimately destroy it from the inside, can be remedied with sensible legislation that is properly followed.
I would welcome a commitment from my hon. Friend the Minister that, even if he cannot make concessions during the passage of the Bill, he will agree to monitor the effects of the Bill carefully and listen to further representations from tenants, and if he finds that the spirit of previous voluntary agreements and of the Bill is not adhered to—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If it is any help to the House, the affirmative motion and prayer that will follow the debate will last for an hour and a half.

Mr. Burt: In conclusion, if my hon. Friend would make such a commitment to monitor the situation, some of our concerns will be covered. I recognise the balance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained at the beginning of the debate, and it has been evident in some of the speeches that we have heard already. Sometimes the poor old Secretary of State is caught in a vice between the interests of the brewers and the industry and those of the tenants so that he cannot get it right. The Bill is a genuine effort to help, and I believe that it will help in a number of ways.
The Bill could be further improved, but if there is a commitment to monitor its effects the best things about the brewing industry in Britain—the quality of pubs, their management and tenants—can be further enhanced. The Bill will not have a detrimental effect—it will be beneficial for tenants, for my constituents, and for the people of Britain.

Mr. James Couchman: I declare my interest in the licensed trade, as I have done on a number of occasions in the House. I am the chairman and majority shareholder of a small family company which runs six houses in London. They are held on a variety of tenures, but are all tenanted or leased. I am also a member of the National Licensed Victuallers Association. I was delighted at the robust and stout defence of interests in the House by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther).
I had some difficulty earlier in the year when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report was published, because at the time I was, as I now am, Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), who was then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and at the Department of Trade and Industry. I was thus constrained to silence at a time when I might have been able to say something about the report, which I consider to have been a flawed piece of work by people who did not understand the industry and all its ramifications despite two and a half years' investigation.
I believe that too much notice was taken in that report of two interests in particular—Guinness and Bulmer's. Guinness has a unique position, as it supplies almost every public house with its products, but until recently it had riot invested in any public houses. Bulmer's had a monopoly, and was pretty upset when it was destroyed by the creation of a second company.
The report offered a grotesque piece of retrospection, because the suggestion was that brewers who owned more than 2,000 public houses would need to sell off all the houses in excess of that number. The brewers had acquired those assets for the sale of their products entirely legitimately, either as individual purchases or through takeovers. The law which prevailed at that time allowed them to acquire the houses. Then, all of a sudden, six people came along, wrote a report and said, "You shouldn't be allowed to do that—you must flog them all off." To me, that was a piece of interference in the market which seemed utterly inappropriate, unfair and retrospective. I thought it particularly so because of the strange phrase that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) highlighted—the "complex monopoly". We have diffuse ownership in the brewing industry. Although it is far less concentrated than in the United States, Australia and several continental countries, it has been held to operate as a "complex monopoly". I found that concept difficult to grasp.
I also found that, after two and a half years of work, the MMC had come to some strange conclusions. I shall mention just one. It concluded that the brewers, who had assiduously built up their managed house operations over 20 years, had done so to make a loss. That seemed a peculiar and curious conclusion. It is, of course, untrue.
Above all, I was worried by the MMC's suggestions, as it seemed to demand a weakening of a substantial, successful and mature industry which has operated in a unique way when we should be strengthening our brewing companies in preparation for 1992 when they may be able more freely to take our unique beer to the continent and interest them in drinking our beer rather than the other way round.
I am worried that the consequences of the report, and what the Bill and the motions that we are to discuss later suggest, will be a weaker brewing industry. I am aware of at least one of the big six companies which is likely to sell its brewing interests. Another is likely to put them at arm's length as a separate plc. A third does not know quite where it is going, but would like to stay in its present vertically integrated form, although it would be caught by the steps that we are taking in these three pieces of legislation. A fourth company's brewing operation is already almost off-shore. A fifth appears to be trying to get itself below the


2,000 houses limit. The management of the sixth has yet to reveal its hand and where it may go. We know little about it.
I am worried that those six companies will, as a result of the MMC report, substantially damage the structure of an efficient industry. That structure has allowed investment by brewers in their public houses, knowing what the likely throughput for their brewing interests would be. That is the purpose of vertical integration. In such circumstances, brewers know with some certainty how much of their product they will sell and if they sell in the free market, that is a bonus.
I was worried that the MMC report came to some curious conclusions, but it was obvious that my noble Friend Lord Young, for whom I worked at the time, was minded to accept much of the report. It seemed, therefore, that there were bound to be changes in the industry. I set myself the task, in a fairly humble way, of acting as a kind of bridge between my friends and landlords in the brewing industry and the Department for which I was working.
I have spoken of my vested interest and experience. Perhaps I may be permitted to take the House back to the early 1970s when brewers decided to build up their chains of managed houses in a pretty rough way, dispossessing successful tenants of their houses and therefore of their homes. The brewers took the successful houses into management, but they did not try to exploit those which were badly run by tenants. They frequently did that without paying any compensation or without offering an alternative house. If an alternative house was offered, it was of a lower standard. Where compensation was paid, it was at a derisory level. As a result of the fight by the trade, a code of practice came into being, which was considered an improvement on the previous position although it had no force in law. The hon. Member for Rotherham referred to the code.
Recently, the major brewers have tended to set houses back from management to tenancy. That is because they made a mess of running the houses under management. This, to some extent, has opened up new opportunities. The kick is that downgraded houses in need of substantial repair are frequently being offered on a lease rather than being set back to tenancy. I speak with personal experience because I recently took a house in such circumstances on a 20-year agreement. It is a good trend as it may allow into the trade those who would not otherwise have been able to enter it, but they will do so on a basis entirely different from that which has prevailed traditionally in the trade. I speak with the experience of my company, which has seen people come into the trade at 18 years of age as barmen, work through management and eventually, in their early thirties, with modest capital, take a tenancy on their own account. That is a way into small business that we should continue to encourage. When premises are put to lease, the capital required is entirely different from a tenancy agreement. Again, I speak with some personal experience.
The worry about security stems, perhaps, from a spate of sales of blocks of houses—the freeholds of houses—over the heads of tenants without any offer being made to the tenants. The houses go to all sorts of companies and are then sold on again. The relationship between the tenant and the brewer landlord is broken entirely and instead there is a purely property relationship. When that

happens a lease may be offered, but at a rack rent, by someone who is not interested in selling beer through the property. It may be that the rack rents will relate to property rather than the public house. The House may know that public house rents have traditionally been quite low compared with those for other retail outlets. When a person is faced with a rack rent on a lease and full repairing terms, however, there is a much greater commitment than that which many people would wish to face, especially if the offer comes late in a career. A man of 55 or 58 may not wish to take on a 20-year lease and may wish, for example, to continue a tenancy with three-year reviews.
I suppose that the Bill offers a degree of security that we have not had before, although I, too, am worried about the right to break out of the landlord and tenant relationship if that is mutually agreed. The mutual agreement is an uneven relationship and may be used either as a lever to ease the tenant out of his house or as part of the interviewing process for new tenants. I am concerned that the Bill may lead ultimately to an end of tenancy as we know it and that there will be a far greater prevalence of leases. That would be a shame. It would mean the end of a route into small business with modest capital, which has allowed many people to enter the industry.
I do not wish to speak at great length about the order, but I should be grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, while I ask my hon. Friend the Minister a few questions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realise that the procedure is a little difficult. We are dealing with the Bill and later we shall deal with the orders. It might be better if questions about the orders were left until we reach that debate.

Mr. Couchman: I am entirely in your hands, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will postpone my questions on the orders, but I regret that that will mean asking for the indulgence of the House for a few minutes in the next debate.
I hope that this great and successful industry will not be irreparably damaged by the steps that we are taking today. Had the inclination to accept the original report unamended prevailed, it would have led to masses of changes in the industry and, ultimately, to far fewer pubs and a great deal of damage. I hope that the Bill will offer a sensible balance. I am timorous about asking for codes of practice to be added at later stages. The question of contracting out should be considered exhaustively in Committee. I am only sorry that I have to serve on the Committee on the NHS and Community Care Bill, and thus will not be able to take part in discussions in Committee on this Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board the concerns about contracting out that have been expressed by several hon. Members tonight.

Mr. Iain Mills: I shall not detain the House for long. I intend to make a short but important speech on behalf of the small independent brewers. I am disappointed that hon. Members have spoken only about the large brewers and have given no encouragement to the smaller businesses. Hon. Members have talked about the retailing, the distribution and the selling in public houses


of the products of extremely large organisations. No one has said that new people wish to come into the business. How do they do that? How do they challenge the great brewing houses?
Some colleagues may say that there are complex problems, and I agree with some of their assessments. However, my few remarks tonight are really an appeal both to the Minister and to House for a little lateral thinking. We need to consider how this measure will encourage new starters in the business. No one has said how one actually starts a new business and how one challenges the big guys. The measure, through its protection of tenants, will encourage those who wish to try.
I have some sympathy with the original reaction to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission proposals, but I think that the Government have the balance about right. Many of the proposals that have been mooted and much of the to-ing and fro-ing during recent months have now been distilled into a practical, good working code. I should like it to go further and encourage small brewers.
If I catch your eye in the next debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will talk about guest beers. There are at least 200 members of the Small Independent Brewers Association who want the opportunity for small business men to begin to brew beer and to get into that big market. I do not formally represent them, but they are my friends and some of them are my constituents. One thing that we can do tonight is to recognise the importance of such people. It is the Government's policy to encourage small business men and entrepreneurs who, strangely, have so far been denied access to a market for their specialist beers. We cannot buy Old Tusker in our local public houses because they are tied and because of the monopoly. Change is needed.
Why was such a big industry, with all its strength, incapable of innovation, of encouraging such people? The CBI, most businesses and even the old steel industry encourage small entrants into their businesses. The breweries have failed to do that, and we need to encourage small new entrepreneurs to enter the business.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate but I was attending a Standing Committee.
I support the Bill. In general it moves in the right direction. But I share many of the concerns that I have heard voiced in the Chamber in the past half hour or so. First, I share the concern that the inequality of power between the two contracting authorities might give the brewery a dominant position over the publican, allowing contracting-out to work to the advantage of the brewery in almost every case. I ask the Minister seriously to consider bringing forward the Bill's implementation date of July 1992. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is nodding. I speak as someone who is the son and grandson of a brewer—a large brewery, too, for most of the time —and my earliest memory was going to a brewery. I do not come to this from a prejudiced position.
A third matter which I have not yet heard mentioned relates to a practice which can often mean that a publican can be put under considerable pressure by breweries. Publican constituents of mine have regularly come to me under such considerable pressure. Widows have had the

traditional indulgence of the widow's year, whitch breweries are not necessarily keen to uphold. I hope that in Committee such a custom will be legalised so that a spouse of a deceased or otherwise incapacitated publican who wishes to continue will be allowed to do so for an additional year.
Let me say one final thing which is not necessarily in support of licensed victuallers or publicans. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). Many people make a substantial contribution to the pleasure and variety of brewing and to the interest of the public by setting up, running and developing small brewing companies. We do not want to prevent them from being able to develop and practise. There was an over-restrictive practice and it was right that that should be examined by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I, too, am happy that in the event the original recommendations were not implemented. The Government are moving in the right direction.
The concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House, not just those who represent members of licensed victuallers associations, appear to command widespread support, and I hope we can ensure that we protect against the danger of inequality. In seeking to provide better security of tenure, we must ensure that publicans are more secure in practice as well as in theory.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: I do not propose to dwell on my role as chairman of the all-party alcohol policy and services sub-committee and as a specialist in public health; that would be inappropriate, given the tenor of tonight's debate. I have preached to the House often enough about the difficulties that some people have with alcohol, and no doubt I shall have ample opportunity to do so again.
I wholeheartedly support the remarks of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). My own experience of pubs began about 25 years ago—I must be sure that that puts me over the age of 18 at the time—in the dark, dingy, smokey places that we had to frequent in Scotland in those days because they were all that was available. There has been a remarkable improvement in the standard of public houses since then. I wish that I could say the same for the beer. Like the hon. Member for Meriden, I should like to see a proliferation of small brewers being given the opportunity to sell their products on licensed premises.
Tonight's debate is part of a highly complex issue. The Bill itself is unexceptionable so far as it goes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said, we do not intend to oppose its Second Reading. One could say that the Bill is distinguished solely by the fact that it is the only one that we shall be considering this Session that is shorter than the legislation dealing with student loans.
The Bill gives on-licence tenants the same rights as other commercial tenants, thereby bringing them within the scope of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, from which they were previously excluded. The Bill's provisions have generally been accepted by the brewers and have the support of the National Licensed Victuallers Association, on whose behalf my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) spoke earlier. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House accept the conviction and knowledge with which he spoke


in respect of the attitudes of an association that represents the wishes and aspirations of tenants. I sincerely hope that the Minister listened carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks and that his points will be taken on board.
Monopolies are complex entities, and the brewing industry is no exception. I suppose that one might more properly call it an oligopoly because there is more than one competing company in that industry. Just because that oligopoly takes a different form in this country from that in other countries—where there is vertical rather than horizontal integration, with the buying out of competitors that one sees in a country such as Holland—does not alter the fact that there are constraints on competition in Britain, which the report of the Monopoly and Mergers Commission properly saw fit to examine.
The Government recognise that there are problems with the present form of the industry. Attempts have been made to modify the Commission's recommendations and to specify which of them should be implemented and which should not. Fair enough. We may challenge the Minister on some of them, and may accept others. Tonight we are attempting to improve the Bill, and we shall do so again in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North mentioned giving the Bill backbone, and we shall certainly seek to do that in Committee.
Specific cases cited by hon. Members in all parts of the House are indicative of the many unfair pressures that are often placed on tenant landlords by their breweries. They make it essential that we try to give the Bill real powers. The Opposition do not accept that a voluntary code of practice is an adequate safeguard against abuse, certainly in the form that has been suggested; we recognise the need for tenants to receive adequate protection, however, and will therefore do our best to give the Bill the teeth that it needs.
Let me add my plea to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, and ask the Government to consider extending the provisions to Scotland. There can be no logic in retaining an anomaly of this kind.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I am grateful to all who have contributed to this workmanlike debate. Many good points have been made, some of which can be discussed more appropriately and at greater length in Committee.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said that he welcomed measures that offered protection to the landlord, balanced by increased competition in the brewing industry. That is the Government's case tonight in comparing the Bill with the orders that we are shortly to consider. The hon. Gentleman feared that the prices of soft drinks were too high: he was worried about paying £2 for some orange juice. He will see that the orders contain proposals to break the ties concerning soft drinks, which may help competition—and competition is the friend of the customer.
I am glad that the Opposition agree that the Bill is necessary. It will be the Government's task in Committee to explain why this Bill, and this Bill alone, provides the

required balance—for it is a case for balance, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear. Other hon. Members have pointed out that, if we go too far, not enough tenancies will be on offer, and the market will be considerably affected, whereas if we do not go far enough we shall not be offering a reasonable deal to tenants who have made representations to my Department, both directly and through other hon. Members.
The hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North and for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) mentioned Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. As we have seen in the press, the brewery is selling some pubs, and I have heard about the nature of the sale from one of its advisers, who tells me that existing tenancies will be honoured as part of its terms. The sale will, of course, lead to more diversified ownership in the pub market, so in a way it satisfies the Opposition's demand that we further implement the MMC's recommendations.
Both the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) mentioned the Scottish legislation. There are two important differences. First, there is more free trade in Scotland anyway, so the market starts from a different point; secondly, there is no Landlord and Tenant Act in Scotland, so the legislation would not be appropriate there. We chose this route because we felt that, in England, there should be a symmetry between the treatment of pubs and the treatment of other types of business tenancy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) made a good point about the need to balance protection with the danger of fewer tenancies resulting. He was worried about the possibility of higher prices. The purpose of the orders is to introduce more competition, which should—in one combination or another—improve service, or prices and choice, for the customer.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for making his points about tenants' protection. He will know that I have met the National Licensed Victuallers Association to hear its representations, and my door is open whenever the association wishes to bring new material to my attention or that of my right hon. Friend. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Government are keen to ensure that the NLVA has a role in monitoring the way in which changes in the industry take place, and the way in which the Act and the orders work in practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North were worried about the case where a tenant builds up a business and is then threatened with the loss of it as the pub tenancy changes. Under current legislation, there is no compensation in such a case. Under the Bill, such tenants will be eligible for compensation. That is an improvement which many hon. Members will welcome. I am sure that there will be further debate in Committee about the way in which that compensation is arrived at, but it is progress to have compensation and the Government's case will be symmetry of treatment between pubs and other business tenancies.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) wants the Bill to proceed. I was grateful for the persuasive way in which he put his points and for the way in which he said that, if we pledged careful monitoring, he might see his way to welcoming our proposals. I can pledge tonight that the Government will,


of course, monitor the proposals when they are implemented extremely carefully and we shall have an open door to good representations on changes.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) was concerned about the original MMC recommendations and thought that they were a little over the top. I am glad that he now agrees that we have abated some of the recommendations and I hope that he will agree that this is a balanced package which reflects the concerns that were put to the Government by the brewing interests on the one hand and by the tenants' and the customers' interests on the other.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) was interested in the plight of small business. Like him, I am a fan of small business and of more choice and competition. He may find that the guest beer provision in the order goes some way to meeting his point. Of course we welcome more small businesses. Pubs provide a way of building a small business for the tenant and there will be more free houses as a result of the proposals. There is a niche in the market for certain kinds of brew. Listening to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy who, from his Scottish viewpoint, casts aspersions against our English beers,I

suspect that he may be part of the market for the new beers which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden would like to see.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was worried about the implementation date. It will be two months after Royal Assent. I think that the hon. Gentleman may have been a little confused about the transitional period. There has to be a transitional period for tenancies that are already in force, but new tenancies will be governed by the provisions from an earlier date than he thought. I shall look into his question about the spouse of a publican who dies or who becomes an invalid during a tenancy; that is a point to which I shall respond in Committee.
I recommend the Bill to the House. It represents great progress for tenants. It is part of a balanced package to improve the shape of the brewing industry and I hope that the House will agree that we should proceed without a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Supply of Beer (Tied Estates)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move,
That the draft Supply of Beer (Tied Estates) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the prayer:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supply of Beer (Loan Ties, Licensed Premises and Wholesale Prices) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 2258), dated 1st December 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be annulled.

Mr. Redwood: The hour is late and I do not want to detain the House at great length. The two orders are an essential part of our balanced package for the brewing industry in response to the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The draft Supply of Beer (Tied Estates) Order includes the guest beer provisions, the reduction in the number of tied houses under the formula identified in the measure and the breaking of the tie on soft drinks, non-beer drinks and low alcohol drinks, which will improve choice and competition.
The Supply of Beer (Loan Ties, Licensed Premises and Wholesale Prices) Order deals with the need to have a facility to repay loans and to obtain an exit from the loan tie within a reasonable time, and it introduces a maximum wholesale prices list. It introduces a supply obligation and restricts or prevents covenants on the sale of pubs after 1 January 1990, under which a brewer tries to sell a pub and to stop its further use as a pub.
These are important measures which are part of a balanced package for the industry. They are the result of a great deal of consultation and thought with the industry, with tenants and with customer groups, following the MMC report. It would be best for me to reply to the specific concerns of hon. Members that they raise in the debate.

Mr. Doug Henderson: I am somewhat disappointed at the way in which the Government have approached these matters. I should have expected a more detailed and thorough approach by the Minister. The order has caused considerable controversy over a long period. By no means is there unanimity in the House on how these matters should be dealt with.
The Government have failed the industry and the consumer by bringing forward the proposals. They have failed to take the opportunity to restructure the industry and bring about competition. They have failed to satisfy the valid objections of pub customers who are fed up with being overcharged for beer and, in particular, lager. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission reckoned that there is overcharging to the tune of 20 per cent. We know also that there are considerable regional differences. A product produced in a certain brewery sells at remarkably different prices in similar circumstances in different regions. The Government have failed to outlaw overcharging for soft drinks, low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beers. That subject

was mentioned in an earlier debate this evening. More important, the Government have failed to give future security to the people who work in breweries and bars.
The proposals are a cave-in to the brewers' lobby. They are half-baked, and they fail to address the need to introduce real competition in the industry, and they will probably do very little to bring down beer prices.
The extent of competition in the brewing industry has always been controversial. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report in March was but another stage in what has become a long controversy. At the time of publication of the report, Lord Young stated that he was mindful to—

Mr. Graham Riddick: Minded.

Mr. Henderson: He was minded to implement the findings. We all know that it did not take Lord Young long to be less minded, and it did not take him long to realise the error of his ways. Few hon. Members are surprised that such a transformation can occur after a little word in the ear from Victoria street and, perhaps, a bigger word in the ear from the Brewers Society. We all know that, in March, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission said that brewers are protected from competition in a complex monopoly. By December, and a Secretary of State later, it seems that the brewers are protected from competition by a new complex monopoly.
The Government have repeatedly stated that they believe in competition policy—the Minister hardly needs me to remind him of this—but does competition apply only to local authorities and public authorities? Where is commitment to competition in the brewing industry? Is it the case that competition is all very well if it involves selling or, as has more often become the case, giving away public sector assets? If it entails compulsorily divesting private capital, we are told that it is an infringement of business freedom. Is it not more honestly an infringement of Conservative party ideology, a cave-in to the Brewers Society and the £6 million of advertising, and a surrender to Conservative Back-Bench Members with vested brewing interests? There are many of them present this evening.

Mr. Roger Moate: Will the hon. Gentleman say a word about my vested brewing interests, for example?

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to remark on the number of hon. Members who have declared a direct interest in the industry. I have made no specific reference to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Moate: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I have already given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity—

Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a vague feeling that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) was looking in my direction. My vested interest is not as a brewer; it is as a licensee and a publican in six tenanted and leased premises. I have no brewing interests whatsoever.

Mr. Moate: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was not a point of order, but the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) has now got his point on the record. Does the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) have a point of order?

Mr. Moate: Only to the extent that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) made a point about vested brewing interests. When some of us speak, we are not speaking for vested interests: we believe that we are speaking for our constituents. In my case, I was speaking for the Transport and General Workers Union, which the hon. Gentleman has singularly failed to do.

Mr. Henderson: I know that you will have realised the relevance of that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it was a little lost on me.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) for raising his point of order because the fact that he thought that I was looking in his direction suggests that he accepts some guilt.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission may or may not have the right approach to breaking up monopoly in the industry. I believe that if a limit of 2,000 were put on ownership, a firm policy of preventing the further concentration of ownership would be absolutely necessary. Only that action could prevent predators from gobbling up the assets disposed of by the brewers. If the loan tie for large brewers were outlawed, we would need a lower limit on pub ownership, which would be permissible to protect the genuinely regional and local breweries.
The Government now appear to have accepted the important principal of tackling the issue of loan tying. If they have—I hope that they have—how can they justify their scheme to outlaw only half the loan ties above 2,000 units? Surely that would still allow the big six to dictate the market. Bass will still have 4,650 units that are owned or tied, out of an estate of 7,300 units. Allied Breweries Ltd. will still have 4,300 units tied or owned, out of an estate of 6,600 units. Many believe that the impact of that will not be to extend competition meaningfully. Indeed, that view has been put to me by people who work in the industry and who believe that it will create instability, threaten jobs and make breweries more vulnerable to takeover.
It is noticeable that the Brewers Society has been remarkably silent of late. We all recall the outrage expressed by the Brewers Society when the MMC report was published in March which had become something of a reservation by the time Lord Young changed his position in July. Where is the Brewers Society now in December? Does it believe that its complex monopoly has been let off the hook by the Government's proposals? If that is the case, where are the Government now? Can they still say that they have stood their ground in the face of pressure from the Brewers Society? Can the Government still say that competition is on the agenda in the brewing industry? How minded is the current Secretary of State to face up to the issues that his predecessor chose to duck after four months? Do the Government really expect that these proposals will dent monopoly power in the industry? And to what extent do the Government believe that their proposals will succeed in bringing down beer prices around the country?
The Opposition accept some parts of the orders. The publication of wholesale price lists for beer, with discounts that are both shown and known, is an important contribution to increasing the information that is available

to publicans. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the MMC's views on this matter—and those of many people in the industry. The provisions that prevent brewers with over 2,000 outlets from tying those outlets to their exclusive supplies of non-alcoholic, low alcohol and non-beer drinks are welcome. That is long overdue. As I mentioned in the previous debate, the Consumers Association estimates that the average price of orange juice in an English pub is £2 a pint.
Large profits are to be made on soft drinks, low-alcohol beers and non-alcoholic beers. Regrettably, the Government have caved in on applying the regulation to regional breweries with fewer than 2,000 units. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission believes that the provision should apply to outlets throughout the country, and I agree.
In my area in north-east England—I apologise for repeating what I said in the previous debate—the new regulations have motivated Scottish and Newcastle Breweries to dispose of its outlets over the level of 2,000. That means that, in many instances, people who drink in regionally owned pubs will have to pay more in the long term for soft drinks and low-alcohol beers. I am the first to concede that in my local area there is not the same demand for low-alcohol beer as there is perhaps in other parts of the country. However, that is no excuse for not providing protection. Consumers in the north-east and those who consume in other regional breweries should have the same rights as those who patronise pubs in national chains.
The Opposition welcome the provision to allow tied pubs to offer a guest beer if they wish. There is a danger that swap arrangements will develop between big brewers. That would undermine consumer choice and keep small cask beers from the smaller breweries out of pubs. As with the soft drinks regulations, regional brewers with under 2,000 units will be completely exempt from the provision and drinkers in north-east England, who are largely required to drink in the outlets of regional brewers, may not have the same choice as drinkers in other parts of the country.
The Opposition believe that the regulations are inadequate to break up what the MMC described accurately as a complex monopoly. Consumers and workers must have better protection. Because of the way in which the regulations have been presented to the House, we do not feel bound in the long term by their contents. We shall not finish with the matters before us this evening. They must be kept under constant review.
The Labour party believes that competition can be enhanced and security for the industry's work force achieved only if several other measures are taken. Further concentration of the big brewers must be stopped. Companies such as Anheuser-Busch and Heineken should not be allowed to plunder the United Kingdom market and would not be allowed to do so under a Labour Government. They would be subject to strict regulations which would be reinforced by the Office of Fair Trading—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is what this is all about."] The matter of the tie should be reviewed. We recognise the need for protection to allow smaller regional and local brewers to develop their business.

Mr. Roger Gale: How would the hon. Gentleman effect the regulation under EEC regulations?

Mr. Henderson: The EEC has still to come to an agreement on how the balance will be struck between powers in Brussels, in Westminster and other powers. If we gave notice that a Labour Government would not allow further concentration of monopoly power in the brewing industry, that would be consistent with the arguments put forward in Brussels to improve competition not only in this country but throughout the European Community.
Non-brewing retail companies which might move into licensed retailing should similarly not be allowed to dominate the market and any ownership limits should also apply to them. Full statutory protection and the right to buy should be guaranteed for pub tenants. Tied arrangements for soft drinks, low-alcohol beers and non-alcoholic beers should be outlawed in all outlets. The Office of Fair Trading should be charged with constantly monitoring competition in the industry. A Labour Government would want discussions with brewers and their work force on how the British brewing industry can break into the European market. In 1988, we had a trade deficit in beer of £73 million.
If competition, consumers' choice, reducing prices, protecting jobs and building a sound future for the industry matter, the Government should further review these orders and face up to the real issues in the industry.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I am sure that it is no new commentary to my hon. Friends that when the two Front Benches agree, let the people of this nation beware for their freedom for their choice and, on this occasion, for their beer.
In case anybody listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and interpreted it to mean that the Labour party was against the Government's proposals, I should point out that only one Labour Member has sat throughout the debate, recently joined by another. That shows the depth of feeling in the Labour party. I understand that there is to be no demonstration in the Lobby from the Labour party. It will be up to others to demonstrate that the Government are not going along the lines that we believe to be in the best interests of consumers.
The Transport and General Workers Union, which is deeply involved in the brewing industry, rightly and wisely made representations, as have non-political clubs. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who is in charge of these matters for the Opposition, however, believes that there is "a feeling" against the big brewers. In more than 20 years in this House I do not recall once having a letter complaining about a monopoly, near-monopoly or technical monopoly in beer. The reason is perfectly simple. If one does not like the house in which one finds oneself, one goes down the road to another. I do not understand how it has been possible magically to dream up the supposition of a monopoly in the supply of beer.
This is not an unimportant matter. Half of British adults go into licensed premises at least once a month and a third do so more than once a week, so if there were a monopoly we would surely have heard about it. We hear of many strange things, so I am sure that we would have heard about that. The Office of Fair Trading dreamed up this inquiry. There were no complaints on its table. It

thought up the inquiry itself. Is Marks and Spencer to be investigated because it sells only St. Michael products in its shops? There is no monopoly there, of course, because one can go round the corner if one does not like its products or prices. So why was the brewing industry investigated in the first place?
If only one point emerges from this debate, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take seriously the widely held view that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is no longer up to the complex, important and elaborate investigations that it has recently been asked to carry out. I know one or two people on the long panel of those selected for these difficult hearings. They are busy, knowledgeable and intelligent people, but the sheer volume of material presented to the commission is a barrier to full understanding, and the salaries paid mean that the staff are generally young and inexperienced. The Government must grasp the nettle either by employing some seriously well qualified people to head up the teams in the MMC or think of going along the American road and passing proper legislation so that cases can be hacked out in the courts of this country. It is completely wrong and against the interests not just of big business but of the nation's shareholders and our national interest in Europe and the world for our great companies to be threatened by such a totally incompetent organisation. I say that advisedly because I can use this report as an example.
The MMC never understood the nature of the retail market in beer. It failed to recognise the importance of clubs. In one village in my constituency the chairman of the licensed victuallers association has a club opposite his pub. He tells me about the competition that the club provides for his pub. The MMC failed to accept the competition between outlets and the choice of beer available in many pubs. It never grasped one of the most elementary facts about the industry, which is that most profits are generated from retailing and not production. That did not take much finding out because it is in the annual reports of all the breweries which are public companies.
The MMC complained about regional price variations, but took no account of variations in land and house prices or labour costs. We who travel from our constituencies to London know about the differences in retail costs in different areas. We accept that everything is more expensive in the centre of London.
There is a wider choice of beer in the United Kingdom than anywhere else in the world. The United Kingdom industry is less concentrated than that of any other country, except possibly West Germany. Prices in United Kingdom pubs, relative to earnings, are lower than in bars elsewhere. Perhaps this is not a good example, but the other day in Rome I was charged the equivalent of £5 for a bottle of mineral water and a bottle of lager beer.
The MMC never accepted that vertical integration was the brewers' incentive to invest in retail premises. It became extremely concerned about the ability of new brewers to enter the market, but more than 50 per cent. of beer sales occur outside brewers' premises. The beer market, particularly in ale, is a mature market and its most successful new entrants have been internationally known brands advertised at great expense, as we all know as we walk through the streets.
I shall not dwell upon the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill which has just received its Second Reading for fear of being ruled out of order. Pubs and


their ties were created as retail outlets for the breweries. Tenants who entered pubs did so in the knowledge that they had a contract, just as a farm tenant takes on his farm knowing that he has a contract with his landlord. The tighter we make the protection for the tenant, the less we induce the landlord to enter into an agreement. I confidently forecast that the number of tenancies which continue on the same basis will start to decline rapidly as the legislation begins to bite.
I fully understand the concern felt about loan ties, but brewers are not banks and if they lend money for the improvement of a club, which is the usual form, it is not unreasonable that they should tie that loan to some interest of their own. That is a perfectly normal commercial transaction.
One of the more agreeable events of my annual calendar is to attend, as an honorary member, the annual general meeting of the Weston-super-Mare Conservative club. In recent years if has borrowed a large sum of money to purchase the property next door, to expand the club, open it up to ladies and generally prosper. It has become so prosperous that it has amassed capital sufficient to pay back the loan that it received under an agreement from a brewery. I listened with interest as the members argued among themselves about the desirability of paying off the loan and being able to buy cheaper beer, from a wider market, and I understand that desire.
Once the order is passed, however, clubs will be unable to obtain such loans as brewers will be less and less willing —because they will see less and less benefit to their businesses—to make such loans available to clubs. That is to be deplored. The publication of wholesale prices is an interference with trade which is unique to beer. I hope that the Minister will justify that in much more detail and with better arguments than the MMC has used.
The Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order contravenes all the Government's best principles. It is the most serious intervention in private property rights since Labour's Rent Acts. Many public houses will come on to the market. Given the size and location of some of those properties, many of them will cease to be licensed premises because their value as residential property will be greater. One more nail will thus be driven into the coffin of rural communities with low-profit pubs.
There has been a decline in the number of brewers. I have the figures for the past 10 years. In 1978 there were 143 breweries and in 1988 there were 107. That decline will be strongly accelerated because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who knows more about the industry than most of us put together, said in his extremely well-informed speech, some of the big brewers will escape the effects of the order by selling their brewing interests. My guess is that before our time is up there will be only a small handful of breweries. That will be the result of the work of the Government—who have no business to interfere in a free market, as they constantly tell us in relation to other areas.
I am disappointed in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who brought a fresh mind to his new position. I had expected him to look at this matter and say that his best market philosophies were not in total agreement with those of his predecessor, but he did not take the view that he could reverse his predecessor's decision. I hope that I am not being too mischievous in reminding the House that his successor at the Department of the Environment took a completely different view about

a well-known planning application at Foxley Wood. Perhaps in his heart my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs will have some sympathy with me in reminding the House of that.
If the theory of monopoly grabs the mind of any hon. Member, I ask him to remember that the position of the regional brewers is greatly strengthened by the order. The competition for the regional brewer, which so far has been the national houses—the big breweries—will be taken away. Out of that will come a greater strengthening of he position of individual regional brewers and that, of course, is at the heart of the reason why the Brewers Society has been so impotent in the matter. That was one of the few things on which I agreed with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. It is a problem of all trade federations—and I have some sympathy for them—that they cannot meet the interests of all their members when there is conflict in the organisation.
Happily, for once there is a positive and easy solution to the problem and I regret that the Government have turned their back on it. It is to review the licensing laws, because it is the existence of those laws which allows the value of a public house to exist. The Government have said that in the next year or two they will review the licensing laws with a view to dealing with the number of licensed houses in an area. Meanwhile, this draconian measure is to be pressed through the House and in three years the Office of Fair Trading will look again at the brewing industry, casting yet another shadow over its future and its commercial development. Why on earth has it not been possible for the Government to say that they will review the licensing laws and consider the proposition that the licensing justices shall not take into account the number of licensed premises in an area? If the Government did that, competition would be rife and free and none of the problems mentioned today, which I do not think exist anyway, would have occurred in the first place.
The Secretary of State should change the decision. The Office of Fair Trading operated under a false premise, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was incompetent, the Brewers Society was muted and the Government's final decison disastrous. I shall vote against the order.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Before I refer to previous speeches in the debate, I must tell the House how pleased I was to be in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) was telling us about his public houses. I have the great good fortune to live bang opposite one of them. It is appropriately called the Constitution, and it is a very attractive and popular-looking pub. A few yards further down the road there is another pub called the St. George's Conservative Club, so I am well served, although I am ashamed to tell the House that I have not been in either of them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"]. Hon. Members must understand that I am not a heavy drinker, and I have to spend so much time here, working hard.
The comments of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), when he referred to Conservative Members having vested interests, were somewhat discourteous, to say the least. I have no vested interest whatever. My only interest is that I used to work for a company that sold soft drinks to the licensed trade,


so I know a little bit about the industry. I realise that that may be a disadvantage when one is talking about a subject, particularly if one is a Labour Member.
The speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North was one of the most blatant and cynical exercises in political point-scoring imaginable. He is totally out of step with his own Back-Bench Members.

Mr. Alistair Burt: What Back-Benchers are they?

Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that there are not many Labour BackBenchers in their places. I can count one, and I know that he has an interest.

Mr. Stan Crowther: In view of what the hon. Gentleman said, how can he say that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) is out of step with me, and I am the only Back-Bencher here?

Mr. Riddick: I have talked to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) about this issue on many occasions, and I am not sure that he altogether disagrees with some of the comments that I may make.
During the past few months, I have had conversations with Labour Members who were concerned about the possible repercussions of the proposals of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Market Access carried out a survey among right hon. and hon. Members, showing that only 23 per cent. of Labour Members believe that the MMC's proposals should be implemented in full. However, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North was criticising the Government for not implementing the MMC's proposals in full, and was suggesting a few months ago that the Government should go further.
I take very little notice of what the hon. Gentleman has to say, particularly his comment that a Labour Government would stop the likes of Ansheuser Busch from getting a foothold in the British market. The proposals will lead to that outcome—they will open the door to the big foreign predators—but he does not seem to realise that.
The brewing industry provides 450,000 jobs in the United Kingdom. It is a significant contributor to the Exchequer and it has invested billions of pounds in pub refurbishment in recent years. There is more variety in the outlets, a larger number of brands are sold—there are more than 1,000 brands of beer in the United Kingdom —beer prices are lower and the average number of brands per bar is greater than in any other industrialised country. Consumer surveys have shown up no great consumer dissatisfaction with the current pub scene. In short, the British pub and the British brewing industry is a success story. How does the British establishment react? As is often the case, we try, perhaps unwittingly, to undermine and even to destroy it.
These orders will severely undermine the delicate and complex balance in the industry. The vertical integration which the order is designed to upset, and which the Office of Fair Trading and the MCC seem to dislike so much, has led directly to the provision of a wide range of brands and the brewers' high level of investment in retail outlets.
The order encourages brewers to entice customers to drink more of their beer, not by making their pubs and amenities more attractive, but by spending more on advertising a few, select big brands.
Nevertheless, the order represents an enormous improvement on the MMC's recommendations. I pay tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench who have shown that they are prepared to listen to some of those who understand the industry. They have made some sensible alterations. As I know them both to be firm believers in the free market, I have no doubt that, had either of them been in the Department during the spring, the original report would have ended up where it most certainly belongs—the dustbin.
I hope that I have not embarrassed my hon. Friend the Minister. He will of course deny emphatically what I have said. Unfortunately, the previous Secretary of State, who we imagined believed in the free market, embraced a report the recommendations of which amounted to a massive and unwarranted intervention by Government in the workings of the free market.
The report raises some questions about the brewing industry and about the role of the MMC and the Office of Fair Trading. After an investigation lasting two and a half years, how could the commission have got it so wrong? Its proposals were based on a number of false premises, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said. It wrongly concluded that most profits were made out of brewing, not retailing. The report failed to understand that consumers are more interested in the amenities on offer than just price. The report almost totally and, it seems, deliberately ignored the clear lessons to be learnt from international experience, which shows clearly that, where brewers have no tied outlets, the market is dominated by a small number of massive concerns.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said in the Second Reading debate, the report would take us down the route followed by Australia some 10 years ago. The MMC dismissed the results of that experience, which was that the market became dominated by two major players and prices rose way ahead of inflation. The MMC recommendations were condemned by those whom they were intended to help. The original guest beer provision which was designed to help small brewers was condemned by small brewers. The proposed ending of loan ties to the free trade was condemned by those in the free trade. How could the MMC get it so wrong? Was the report plain flawed or was it drawn up with one purpose in mind—to destroy the vertical integration which is the central structure around which the brewing industry is built?
I have heard from more than one source of the Office of Fair Trading's dislike of vertically integrated industries. Sir Gordon Borrie, the director general, has confirmed to me in a letter that he was consulted about the MMC's recommendations when they were being drawn up, so it is a little surprising that the OFT, which has great experience, did not draw attention to some of the obvious flaws in some of these recommendations.
The failure of the MMC and the OFT to grasp the obvious solution to any so-called problem that might exist in the market—to limit the number of houses that any brewery could own in any geographical area—suggests to me that those responsible for the MMC's report were determined to arrive at a preconceived set of conclusions regardless of the realities of the industry and so long as it


undermined the vertical integration that they disliked so much. They failed to tackle regional monopolies. There seems to have been dogma at work.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should initiate an investigation into the conduct of the MMC's inquiry. The orders will lead to some breweries divesting themselves of their brewing interests and to more money being spent on brand advertising and less on pub refurbishment and improvements. I fear, too, that the price of a pint will increase, not decrease. If my worst fears come to pass, the MMC will have much to answer for. I am minded not to support the orders.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I declare an interest as the proud representative of the great brewing centre of Britain. The constituency is proud of the contribution to its daily life for over a century of such great brewing names as Bass, Ind Coope, which is part of Allied Lyons, and Marston's which is one of the great regional brewers.
I congratulate the Government on a shrewd piece of business management in scheduling the debate, when the House has been hammered by world-shattering events over the past few weeks, when we have faced the demands of television and the urgent requirements of our families to see us before we slip into the Christmas mode, and when as a result the House is emptier, especially on the Opposition Benches, than it would have been. It is as shrewd a piece of business management as could have been engineered in the interests of business efficiency. When my hon. Friend the Minister says, "The hour is late, these measures are not all that important and really, chaps, it is time for us to pack up and get home," I can appreciate how clever the Government have been.
So it comes about that, at the fag end of the pre-Christmas part of the Session, we are debating changes as potentially damaging to the British drinker and the production of the British pint as it is possible to conceive in a free society. If the Monopolies and Mergers Commission had had its way, the only brewer left in Burton would have been the Heritage brewery, which, although an excellent institution, is a working museum. However great its output and however delightful its product, it hardly satisfies the nation's thirst in the same way as the great breweries of Allied Lyons, Bass and Marston.
The MMC's report was a production so manifestly damaging and absurd in its major pronouncements that the industry could hardly believe its ears when Lord Young of Graffham, in a moment of inadvertence, which he must have lived to regret, said that he was minded to accept it. So great was its authors' commitment to the removal of restrictive practice, wherever it is, however it is and whenever it is, that they seemed never to begin to grasp some of the essential truths about the brewing industry.
They did not understand that commercial rents are not always being charged for public houses. The country is full of small pubs that could not exist if commercial rents were charged. Why is that? Because the brewers can get their profit from volume sales of their own beer, and there is no need to make money from rents. Small villages often have uneconomic village pubs. They are of great charm and beauty, existing in some of the most beautiful parts of

Britain, but their existence could hardly be justified by turnover. They are encouraged to continue by the large breweries, which consider them publicity outlets—perhaps loss leaders—or perhaps quite simply can afford to carry their losses.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission did not understand that beer prices are lower in tied houses than in free houses because there are lower rents and cheaper loans and the prices are kept down by the tie. In my constituency town of Burton upon Trent we visited a number of pubs and found that in almost every case the price of beer in tenanted houses was lower than that in the free houses.
The commission did not understand that the good pubs, and there are very many of them, provide a far wider choice of beers, produced by major brewers, than can be found anywhere on the continent. The French do not come to Britain expecting a limited supply of beer or a limited choice, and neither do the Italians. We could go anywhere on the continent and find nothing like the opportunity in Britain to choose between the different sorts of beers produced by the same brewer, or even different brewers. The sheer number of small pubs in the streets of towns and villages in Britain provides the competition for which the MMC thirsted, and it is far greater than in any street in any town or village on the continent where the tie does not exist.
The MMC did not understand that, if we force major brewers to choose between being manufacturers of beer and being retailers, because they have shareholders they have to choose to be retailers. That is where all their capital is tied up. One major brewer said to me, "We have £30 million tied up in our manufacturing estate, but we have £750 million tied up in our retailing estate. If we are forced to choose, we will shift our production abroad or import beer that is manufactured abroad." One of the primary fears about the MMC report was that it would cause a serious decline in the manufacturing of beer in Britain.
The MMC did not understand that, in any event, 50 per cent. of beer sales are made not in public houses, but in supermarkets and other outlets. It is no longer true to say that one must go to a public house for beer.
Nor did it understand that the commitment to a certain brand of beer is often very strong. The nearest to a riot that I have experienced in my constituency office on a Saturday morning was when Bass and Allied decided to swop some pubs in Burton. The appalling thought occurred to some of my finest constituents that they might have to walk a little further down the road to get the Double Diamond they loved. They would not put up with a change of product in their local public, house. That sort of commitment is peculiar to beer and has nothing to do with the choice that the economists say the customer craves.
As a result of all those misconceptions of what are fundamental truths about how the .,British brewing industry works and how the drinking people respond to it, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was driven to some truly absurd conclusions.
It recommended the forced sale of private property, some 22,000 pubs, as tyrannical a measure as could be found in any Socialist regime in eastern Europe, and one which is totally unacceptable to a Britain of the Thatcher era or even to the era that preceded it, when the Prime


Minister was my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He also would never have tolerated such tyranny.
The commission recommended a low ceiling on the number of tied outlets which, as my hon. Friends have already said and I will not labour the point, would inevitably have forced down sales and forced up closures, reduced public houses and restricted competition and the availability of beer to the British drinker.
The commission threatened the disruption of clubs. They are competitors to pubs. They provide not only a high proportion of the draught beer that is drunk in Britain, but they do so at low prices. It proposes to draw a distinction between the major brewers and the regional brewers. So in parts of Britain, such as Wolverhampton, the regional brewers would be permitted to operate every pub, because the regional brewers are not a major brewer, and the major brewers would not be allowed to operate such a monopoly—an absurdity. Like so many of these economic rules stretched to a completely alien environment, the logic of it leads to the most absurd results.
The commission proposed to restrict the outlets of a brewer's product—an interference with the working of the free market. That is what we have in Britain at present. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the most outstanding spokesman of the free market on the Government Front Bench, choked on his words. He could hardly sit down quickly enough. His introduction of the order took about two and a half minutes flat. No wonder he was ashamed of what he was saying. All his life he has fought for the free market and that is the very thing that the commission's proposals will interfere with.
I do not seek to delay the House a moment longer than is necessary to try to convince hon. Members of the nonsense of the measures. The question is whether the Government have seen enough sense to cut, to trim, to neuter, the commission's harmful recommendations. I am driven to the conclusion that they have not. They have hardly begun. They think that they have come to some kind of compromise and it is true that the compromise will cushion the blow to some extent.
The Government have done good things such as the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill, to which the House has just given a Second Reading. They have done things that are not unacceptable, such as the introduction of a guest beer, as though there are many pubs that do not now have guest beers. That is another misunderstanding of the commission. Practically every pub has some kind of guest beer, if it is only Guinness. I do not think anyone will mind too much about the breaking of the tie of the soft drinks.
But the fundamental matter is the forced closure, the forced transfer, the restriction of outlets, the restriction of choice, the restriction of competition within Britain where we understand how beer is brewed, the reduction in the access which ordinary drinking people in our society will have. I see one curled up in the corner there. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is a great tribute to the drinking masses. When the drinking people of Britain wake up tomorrow morning and hear what we have done in their name tonight, they will throw up. I am driven to

the conclusion that the Government have done nothing near enough to trim away what is bad and absurd in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report.
I listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson)—who has left the Chamber to have his goodnight tipple, or whatever—concerning jobs. The Opposition Benches are crowded with hon. Members who are concerned about the possible job losses inherent in stripping down the major brewers' contribution to employment. One is talking not just of the people working in the breweries but of those employed in pubs and, in my own constituency, in the factories that produce brewery equipment. We must consider all those matters. I welcome back to the Chamber the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. I hope that he sustained himself with Burton ale.
Under these orders there will inevitably be a concentration of a smaller number of brand products produced in a high volume. A limitation on choice will be the result. There will also be a restriction on the capital investment in public houses. The price of beer will rise, and although the market may assuredly be open to the foreign brewer, he cannot claim to produce beer of the quality that we in Britain know how to produce.
To argue, as the Opposition have done, that the Bill represents a craven collapse to the brewers' lobby or to the Brewers Society is as much nonsense as we have heard from the members of the Opposition Front Bench on any subject so far in this Session. The very opposite is true. The Government are instead guilty of a craven collapse to the views of some very strange reporters in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
I conclude by reminding the House of the minority report. Mr. Mills commented:
I consider my colleagues' recommendations to be far more drastic than is necessary and indeed that they could worsen the problem … I consider that the recommendations are unnecessary and indeed could lead to a reduction of competition and less consumer choice.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, the great stalwart for consumer choice and for more competition, should take heed of those words.
Mr. Mills continued:
Many [tenants] would presumably become unemployed … in my view the proposed changes might even lessen that competition … and … the other recommendations … would be an unnecessary leap in the dark, could be counter-productive and damaging to the structure of the industry and consequently be against the public interest. The tied estate and the loan tie should be left to continue as they are and the brewing industry should be left to change and develop as it is already doing.
I pay tribute to the major brewers in my constituency who have done wonders in improving their pubs. With the help of flexible licensing hours, they have been encouraged to introduce whole families into the environment of the traditional English pub. The standard of behaviour has also improved. At the very moment when the British brewing industry and the British pub are beginning to expand and improve, and to be greater than they have ever been, we are going to break the glass and dash it in the face of the consumer. That is a very odd way for a Conservative Government to behave.
There seems to be no sense in these measures that this Government of all Governments are introducing. They will damage one of our great industries, reduce


competition, weaken quality, and drive up prices. If there is a Division at the end of these proceedings, I shall go into the lobby and vote against the Government.

Mr. James Couchman: After that eloquent speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes.
Although the interest that I declared earlier is still relevant, let me put it on record that I am no longer a licensee, having passed the joint licenseeship of my six houses to a fellow director. It happened quite recently, and I overlooked it in my point of order.
It is the Supply of Beer (Tied Estates) Order that mainly concerns me, as I believe that it will wreak the most damage on the traditional pub estate. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) was particularly worried about rural pubs, and other hon. Members have also mentioned them, but I believe that if brewers are forced to choose between putting a substantial number of their pubs at arm's length and selling them off they will choose the latter course. They will begin to sell valuable high street properties, which will almost certainly be worth more if sold for some other use than they are as public houses, and not only rural communities but many urban ones will lose their pubs.

Mr. Gale: As a friend, colleague and fellow Kent Member, my hon. Friend will know only too well that many rural pubs in Kent are already faced with exactly that prospect, standing as they do in as much as three quarters of an acre of development land. The order will result in villages in Kent and throughout the country having no pubs at all.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend's remarks encapsulate the problem in the south-east, particularly those areas where land values and property prices are high. That is where the most pubs will probably be sold.
Although my hon. Friend the Minister has managed to modify the extent to which certain classes of licensed premises are caught by the Act, he has failed to address the problem of full on-licence premises that are not public houses. I refer particularly to hotels, in which the proportion of turnover representing beer sales is extremely small. I believe that there is also a problem relating to bingo clubs and the like, although I am not personally acquainted with it.
I have one more question for my hon. Friend, concerning the estate that the brewers will be allowed to retain under tie. New developments are taking place: in the old Chatham dockyard in my constituency, a complete new community will be built up through such a development, which includes residential, office, leisure and commercial elements, and the addition of a public house —perhaps two or three—will undoubtedly seem an attractive proposition. What will be the position of the major brewers, who may have the money to invest in the new properties? Will they have to put further houses at arm's length to compete? It would be ridiculous, surely, if the overall pool of licensed premises were increased by those houses.
My next point is very parochial and vested: it relates to the guest cask-conditioned beer that those of us who are the tenants of six major brewers will be allowed to stock.

Personally, I consider that my hon. Friend was right to exclude the regional brewers, although we must remember that the biggest is nearly as big as the smallest of the big six. The regional brewers, especially the small ones, had a legitimate fear that their pubs would be flooded wiLth major, heavily advertised national brands of lager if they had had to have a guest beer in those houses.
There are problems that the orders do not address. The orders speak of additional rents that may be required by brewer landlords so that the loss of income shall be made up, but they do not address problems such as the use of equipment. The near-mutilation of counters is involved in the installation of new facilities for the supply of cask-conditioned beer. The installation of a pump is a substantial modification and that problem should be addressed. Refrigeration equipment is used to cool beer and, in its modern form, is a far more complex piece of equipment than it used to be. Can the guest cask-conditioned beer be served through that or will additional equipment have to be installed?
There is also the question of advertising and promotion. I got out my six agreements—in five different forms—and the one point that they have in common is that I am not allowed to advertise or promote within those pubs other people's products. What provision does my hon. Friend propose to make for the advertising of guest beers? What is more natural, if a minor or regional brewer manages to get its product into a major brewer's pub, than to want to promote it in some way? Those questions need to be answered.
We are now seeing no alcohol and low-alcohol beers in pubs—the so-called "NABLABs"—on draught as well as in bottles. If we are to free the tie for NABLABS, it will require additional dispensing equipment which will have to go on to the counter. That will bring into question the brewer-landlord's ownership of those counters and their use for dispensing.
There is a myth about the mineral tie. I am not tied on minerals for any of my public houses. By and large, the major brewers do not tie for minerals. It is the regional brewers which still tie for minerals and they are excluded from the order, which makes it a bit of a nonsense. Those are the questions—which I accept are technical and parochial within the industry—that my hon. Friend has a duty to the House to answer if the order is to have any substance.
I want to say little about the Supply of Beer (Loan Ties, Licensed Premises and Wholesale Prices) Order. The publication of wholesale price lists with discounts that are available will do nothing other than to allow brewers to publish their maximum wholesale prices. Those maximum wholesale prices will undoubtedly be exacted from the tenanted trade, so the tenanted trade—the weakest purchasing power—will be unable to use the benefits of the publication of those price lists.
If I had more time, I should like to say more to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) about mineral prices. I can justify the prices that are charged for minerals in public houses, but perhaps we shall have another occasion on which to discuss that.

Mr. Alistair Burt: I seek to detain the House for no more than two minutes. I do not wish to argue the merits of the MMC report, which has been dealt


with sensibly by several of my hon. Friends who are better qualified than me. I wish to make just one comment about the Supply of Beer (Tied Estates) Order.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to create a level playing field—an overused metaphor these days—but to ensure that the tenants of regional breweries have the same slope on the counter as colleagues who belong to larger breweries in relation to the tie for minerals and ciders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) properly pointed out, it is nonsense that the regional breweries have been excluded from the provision which removes that tie for the larger brewers. The tenants of those regional brewers in my constituency would welcome the opportunity for that tie to be swept away.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at that point in Committee and to accept certain evidence on it.

Mr. Redwood: A good number of points have been raised. Of course, Opposition Members have raised points in a diametrically opposite way from those raised by my hon. Friends who are worried about the impact that this measure may have upon the brewing industry. My hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I might have had some difficulties with the order. I remind them of my personal history in this connection.
I seem to remember that, as a Back-Bench Member, I signed the early-day motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) when the MMC report first came out, and when the then Secretary of State said that he was minded to implement the report in full. I felt, as my hon. Friends feel today, that that was an extremely large attack on property in the private sector, which I could not support. When the proposals were substantially changed on 10 July so that mandatory sale of pubs was no longer to be imposed upon brewing companies, I withdrew my name from the early-day motion, and I am glad that I did as Opposition Members might otherwise have been unkind enough to point it out. That reflected my then judgment that a good compromise had been reached between the recommendations of the MMC and those who did not wish to see any change at all in the industry after the identification of a public interest detriment with respect to competition.
I cannot say that I accept the criticism that I, the apostle of competition and free markets, am eating all my own words, because I am responding to an MMC report which identified defects in competitiveness in an industry and I am making proposals today which go some way to remedy the identified defects. Some Labour Members have criticised me, saying that I have not been competitive enough in the proposals that I have brought forward.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton was concerned that this measure is not the craven collapse to the brewers that Labour Members are suggesting. He felt that we would have been well advised to take the advice in the minority report. In some ways, one can say that the Government did that, as our proposals are nearer the views of Mr. Mills than to the recommendations of the

main report in terms of the treatment suggested for the industry in the orders. I remind my hon. and learned Friend that the minority report also found a public interest detriment. The author of the report did not say that there was no case to answer. He said that he thought that the remedies recommended in the main report went too far. That is the Government's view, too, and that is why the 10 July statement, as amended in response to subsequent consultation, has taken the form of the current orders and not the more extreme form of remedies suggested in the original MMC report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare thought that there was some inconsistency in the Government's treatment as between these measures and Foxley Wood. There is a missing link in his argument. which does it some damage. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State arrived at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Government had already had second thoughts on the MMC report and, in the light of consultation and of feelings in the House, had come forward with the excellent compromise proposal that has been embodied in the orders, with some minor amendments in the light of further consultation. That was not the case when my other right hon. Friend arrived at the Department of the Environment, where the report had been through only one stage. The Secretary of State then said that he was minded to accept it, and consultation revealed that that was not a good idea. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare will appreciate the nuances and see that there is a distinction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham asked a number of detailed questions. He asked whether high street pubs rather than rural pubs might be sold and whether they might pass out of the pub business altogether. I do not think that there will be a huge change between the position after these orders have gone through and the position that already exists. Brewers are becoming much more aware of the valuation of their retail estates, and they are making a distinction, for management purposes, between running the property and running the brewery. That was quite clear in the trends in the industry before the orders came forward. Therefore, I do not think that there is such a sea change as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting and I do not hazard a view as to which types of pubs are more likely to be sold or to pass out of pub use altogether.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend is suggesting that there is already a trend in the way in which the brewing industry is structured and that there has not been a significant sea change, but others would suggest differently. We are already seeing evidence of major and significant changes as a direct result of the MMC report. If the trend appears to be hastening and we are to see a substantial divestment of properties—my hon. Friend has said that he was against the original proposals because of the implications for enforced sales of properties—what proposals does he have for altering and relaxing these proposals, perhaps to undo some of the damage that people may suffer?

Mr. Redwood: There is all the difference in the world between forcing people to sell pubs and giving them choices to deal with the problem of the tie which is what the report and these orders address. There is evidence that pubs are coming on to the market, but there is also evidence that before the orders were laid before the House


and before the MMC report was published major brewers were looking hard at their property values and were beginning, for management purposes, to segregate the returns on rented property from those on brewing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham asked about new pubs and new developments. If a national brewer wishes to buy and open such pubs, it will be governed by the dynamic formula. There are several ways in which that brewer could acquire a new pub and still meet the target of the dynamic formula by, for example, adding one untied property for every tied property or by making other changes in the estate. Because of the way in which the dynamic formula works, people are not prevented from adding pubs to their chain, but the numbers of tied and untied are influenced under the formula. I am glad that my hon. Friend feels that the Government were right to exclude the regional breweries. There is logic in that case, as the hon. Gentleman described.
The questions of equipment, advertising and new agreements which might be necessary to implement some parts of the provision are commercial matters that will be settled by negotiation between the parties. It would not be right for the Government to have a view on how those negotiations should be conducted or how they may turn out.
To my hon. Friends who are worried that we may have gone too far against the brewers and who fear that there may be a threat to the British pub, I say simply that that well-known independent publication, "The 1990 Good Pub Guide", passes into the realm of political and industry comment when it concludes:
Our research shows that the MMC proposals to break the big brewers' complex monopoly pose no threat to the future of the British pub as a thriving institution.
As my hon. Friends may know, those responsible for the publication have conducted an extensive survey of all pubs. If we are concerned about the charge brought by the Labour party that there may not be enough competition in the proposals, Labour Members can listen to my hon. Friends who feel that too many changes may be in view.
Another independent source—a leading stockbroking analyst in the City, with a good knowledge of the brewing industry—has stated:
What will probably happen as a consequence of the latest recommendation is that the proportion of UK beer sales sold in some sort of free market place could rise from 54 per cent. towards two thirds, and it is possible that the proportion could rise even as high as 70 per cent.… Our view is that the UK brewers will find the new environment considerably more challenging.
That may well be a sensible conclusion to have reached on the evidence.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister give a commitment to the House that he will ask the Office of Fair Trading regularly to investigate this matter and report to him?

Mr. Redwood: I give no specific assurance of the kind sought by the hon. Gentleman, but it is the duty of the Director General of Fair Trading to keep all matters relating to competition under some kind of watching review. It is always open to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to make representations if they feel that major problems have been brought to their attention.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said that he was disappointed that I had been so brief. I was simply trying to give my hon. Friends

adequate time to make their points and myself adequate time to reply to them. I was disappointed in his speech because I came expecting a major parliamentary occasion. I had read "What's Brewing". It said that the Labour party planned to force a new major brewing debate. [Interruption.] It gets better. This great debate, manfully conducted by one Back Bencher, one Front Bencher and one silent Whip was going to be a huge occasion. "What's Brewing" tells us that
the aim is to combine with pro-competition Conservative MPs, force the Government to withdraw the orders, and come back with something more impressive.
Where are the pro-competition Conservative Members wanting to unite with Labour on the grounds that the orders do not go far enough? I have not heard any of them speak. If anything, Conservative Members feel that the Government have been a little too firm with the brewers. Where are the serried ranks of Labour Members who are to bring about this amazing challenge to Her Majesty's Government? If they are not testing brews in the pubs of London, they are probably tucked up in their beds where all sensible people should be at this hour. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's interview in the CAMRA publication is a case of him playing to the camera. Perhaps in future when he is about to savage the Government he will ensure that all his hon. Friends are on a one-line Whip. That seems to be the form here this evening.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North also says that I stand accused of lacking enthusiasm for competition. I will defend myself with some spirit against that rum charge. Much of what I have said and written shows that I am not lacking in enthusiasm for competition, and much of what the Government are doing shows that they are committed to a firm competition policy. They are much more enthusiastic than the Labour party was when in office and than it advises us to be in individual decisions and problems brought before the House.
I promise the hon. Gentleman that there will be competition. The policies that he faintly outlined tonight would make matters worse rather than better. Competition will be seen in the creation of more free houses, the guest beer provisions and the breaking of the tie on soft drinks and low alcohol beverages. The publication of price lists, which he welcomed, will help competition, particularly from tenants and smaller purchasers who feel that they do not get a fair deal. I am surprised that he attacks the regional breweries. An important part of rigorous competition in the brewing industry is to give the regionals the chance to expand and produce their alternative wares.
I hope that micro-brewers—the very small brewers about whom we heard earlier—will flourish. I am sure that there is scope for the good niche brewers whose products the public will savour and like to buy. There will be more chance for the public to buy such products under the arrangements set out in the orders.
Some of my hon. Friends accused the MMC of bad workmanship and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare said that the MMC should be strengthened in various ways. I remind him that the MMC already has a large number of experienced panel members from industry and commerce. They are there to provide a leavening of experience and expertise based on their business to go alongside the work of technical experts on the staff. I hope that he will bear that in mind when considering the way in which the MMC operates. He also


asked whether there had been any case where wholesale prices had been revealed. Proceedings are usually undertaken as a result of inquiries. Two examples that come to mind are British Gas prices and the price of plasterboard. We are not singling out the brewers.
The Government are reviewing the licensing system for the very reason identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare. One of the underlying reasons for the power in the market place identified in the report is licensing. But licensing also has benign consequences. There is a good reason why pubs are licensed, as all hon. Members will accept. The Government are aware of the problems. That is why the matter is being reviewed to see whether there need to be changes in the light of the problems identified by my hon. Friends and others.
This has been a good debate. It has revealed that the House is split between Labour Members—who want the orders toughened up and the brewers taken further to task —and my hon. Friends who feel that there has not been enough care taken in responding to the brewers' concerns. In that connection, the brewers have made many good representations in recent months and the orders now represent a sensible conclusion to those negotiations with several important modifications that I hope my hon. Friends will welcome.
It is important that the Government have taken out of the equation food chains which sell some beverages, perhaps alcoholic ones, as part of their general food service. They are not offering a general pub service to the public coming in off the streets. That was a mistake in the earlier versions and I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that it was a good idea to remedy that problem.
The reason why the Government have kept the full on-licence as the criterion is that a definition of a pub is that its service involves serving a drink and nothing else to people coming in off the street. That is the problem that the MMC identified, which is why the orders are drafted as they are. That does not make a huge impact on most of the chains concerned because the number with hotels of the size for which exemption is sought are few and the number of hotels is also few, so it does not have a material impact on the total number of pubs covered.
I hope that the House will vote for the orders, reject the Opposition's prayer against the one order and support the Government's positive resolution in favour of the other. The orders represent a good deal for tenants, for customers and for the brewing industry in the light of the MMC report, and I hope that my hon. Friends will support them.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 54, Noes 8.

Division No. 22]
[12.7am


AYES


Amess, David
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Arbuthnot, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Atkinson, David
Irvine, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kennedy, Charles


Boswell, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bowis, John
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Mans, Keith


Burns, Simon
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Burt, Alistair
Mills, Iain


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Norris, Steve


Carrington, Matthew
Paice, James


Carttiss, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Chapman, Sydney
Porter, David (Waveney)


Chope, Christopher
Redwood, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Speed, Keith


Durant, Tony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Fallon, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Fishburn, John Dudley
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Forth, Eric
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Freeman, Roger
Wallace, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Widdecombe, Ann


Goodlad, Alastair
Wood, Timothy


Gow, Ian



Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mr. David Lightbown and


Hague, William
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


NOES


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Vaz, Keith


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)



Lawrence, Ivan
Tellers for the Noes:


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. Jerry Wiggin and


Riddick, Graham
Mr. Roger Moate.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Supply of Beer (Tied Estates) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

MEDICINES

That the draft Medicines (Intermediate Medicated Feeding Stuffs) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

EDUCATION

That the draft Education Support Grants (Amendment) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 15th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved. —[Mr. Goodlad.]

Question agreed to.

Consumer Protection

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alastair Goodlad.]

Mr. David Porter: I shall start by thanking Mr. Speaker for giving me this opportunity to raise the subject of consumer protection. I also want to thank and pay tribute to Miss Susan Fleming, a third-year politics major student at the university of East Anglia. As part of her course she has been assigned to work on a project of my choice for one day a week this autumn term, and I am grateful to Miss Fleming for her research. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for giving me time to air some of my views. I also thank most warmly the staff of the National Consumer Council who have provided helpful assistance.
In order to make consumer protection a reality and not a pious intent, I call for the establishment of a CIA in Britain, a consumers' interests authority. Although I am reluctant to advocate more bureaucracy, I think that, parallel with the green revolution and in tandem with individual choice and responsibility, we need to go into the 1990s with strengthened consumer protection.
The proposals by the National Consumer Council for a consumer guarantee on cars and household goods costing over £50 go a long way towards providing the consumer with real choice and protection in the marketplace. That guarantee concept is at the heart of customer confidence.
Our trading standards service generally does a good job. Sometimes its members are limited by resources, and sometimes by their brief, the criminal side of the standards enforcement, which leaves a gap on the civil side, which has no protection.
An authority or agency such as the one that I propose would include the parameters of the trading standards service to some extent, some parts of the Office of Fair Trading, weights and measures, and the various schemes for independent arbitration and would reduce some of the work load of the small claims courts.
Local authorities should decide their priorities on trading standards. Consider the differences in spending per head on consumer protection last year—it ranged from £2·05 in Warwickshire to 64p in Lancashire. The projected range for the current year is from £2·62 in Warwickshire to 89p in Lincolnshire.
Local democracy apart, consumers are entitled to a more certain sign that local authorities, as enablers, are meeting their commitments. I accept that the figures could, to some extent, reflect the inefficiency of the statistical service. I do not want to go too far down that road, and talk about those figures, but they illustrate my point.
We hear daily about the rights of voters, the rights of women, the rights of workers and even the right to die. Surely, as consumers, we must expect a minimum agreed standard of manufacture and service. That is not too much to expect, is it? I do not think that an agreed standard that manufacturers of goods and suppliers of services have to meet is too much to expect.
Let us take the famous case of Mr. Bernstein. Some 27 days and 140 miles after he bought his Nissan Laurel car, the engine seized. He was forced to take the garage that sold it to him to court, but the judge told him that it was too late for him to reject the car, and that he was only entitled to compensation.
The Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 gives the consumer the right of redress against the retailer if goods are faulty, but it is flawed, because the consumer is deemed to have accepted the car or the goods after an unreasonably short time. Therefore, the consumer loses the right to get his or her money back.
Let us take the case of Miss Cox and Mr. Flowerday, two of my constituents, who started a small business under the Government's enterprise allowance scheme. They bought a brand new Fiat for the business. From day one it was clearly a dud. Eventually, after endless repairs, an independent assessment and much citing of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, a solicitor advised them to accept £100 m compensaton, because they could not afford the court procedures. Why should they have had to go to the expense, the delay and the inconvenience of going to court? If they could have gone to a consumer interest authority, the court element might not have been necessary, but if it had been, the authority would have handled it on their behalf.
Under current legislation, a contract is established between the retailer and the customer. Last Session, I introduced a Ten-Minute Bill—the Public Servic:e Contracts Bill. I sought to lay down the right to compensation when public services such as British Rail, the Post Office, and local authorities failed to deliver an agreed minimum standard, if possible a legal minimum standard. I still believe that that is right, and that it should apply to the sale of goods in the same way.
The Retail Consortium hopes to be able to support the concept of consumers' guarantees, a subject on which much has been said lately. It wants satisfied customers. After all, business depends upon satisfied customers. In millions of daily transactions, best practice prevails, and can be demonstrated to do so. Of course there are cowboy sellers, and unreasonable customers, but retailers are keen to protect consumers' rights.
The Retail Consortium is part of a monitoring group on misleading prices, which was set up by the Minister, who, I think, prefers a code to regulation when there is detailed agreement within a trade and with enforcement agencies. Perhaps the role of the DTI in those matters needs defining.
The convention that the retailer is liable stems from the clout that he presumably has with his own suppliers and the difficulty of the individual taking on the large manufacturers. Consider the Philips fan-assisted oven that did not reach roasting temperature unless the fan was disabled. It was a straightforward design fault, but Philips denied responsibility and passed the buck back to the retailer. The customer was left out of that entirely.
We also have the case of the Honda motor bike, the brake of which would seize in snowy weather—with obvious consequences. Honda did not see it as a manufacturing problem, but blamed the British practice of salting roads in icy weather.
They may be isolated and extreme cases, but an enforcement agency could make even giant manufacturers more responsive to consumer demands. We should never under-estimate the power of consumer demand. The marketing of products in aerosol cans, for example, is being changed out of all recognition because of it.
I believe that there is a growing tide of demand for a legally enforced, reasonable minimum standard for goods and services. In Britain, up to 6 million people a year fail to get adequate satisfaction when something they have


bought goes wrong. It is not just the purchaser who loses out. As consumers, we all pay for the production and marketing of shoddy, if not useless, goods.
A potential buyer looking at a line of washing machines or fridge-freezers has nothing to tell him or her how much faith the manufacturer has in the reliability of his product or how efficient the after-sales service will be. That means that British manufacturers are missing a vital element that would help them enormously.
The NCC consumer guarantee would cover the entire product for 12 months at least, and any fault would be repaired at no cost to the consumer, provided that the consumer had not caused it. If the item were not repaired within five days—three days for cars—the consumer would be loaned a similar one, or compensated for loss and expenses. A fault would be put right in three attempts and the product would not be out of use for more than 30 days in any 12-month period, or there would be a choice of a refund or replacement.
The idea is not to cause manufacturers to mark the goods with a guarantee, but to oblige those without it to be clearly marked "This has no consumer guarantee." What an incentive for improvement that would be. What an act of faith it would be for quality manufacturers. What a death sentence it would be for most of the cowboys.
Details are subject to debate, but what about the principle? Even then, things may still go wrong. We have independent arbitration schemes, and banks and building societies have ombudsmen. There is talk of the tourist industry having an ombudsman. Ombudsmen have the good will of the industry and the support of the public. We should have a high street ombudsman for the consumer in the street.
Sweden has an independent arbitration scheme in its Public Complaints Board. It deals mainly by post with civil claims, at very little public cost. The board gives an advisory judgment which, if not accepted, is sent to arbitration. Names and details are widely publicised, which has proved effective. Power of public embarrassment is an additional tool on the consumer's side. Sweden's system is less bureaucratic than our small claims court, and I hope that it commends itself to the Minister.
There is a model in the United States. Most states have a utilities commission with power to refer to the district attorney complaints of violation of legal service standards. In effect, the district attorney can prosecute on behalf of individuals, and most get compensation out of court as a result. It is a principle that can be adapted here—legal minimum standards without being too complex, expensive or off-putting.
A CIA would be customer-friendly and be seen as such. It would present not an obstacle course in the minefield of consumer legislation but a powerful ultimate sanction in a society in which the Government have given the individual choice and responsibility.
I ask two things of the Minister. First, he should give periodic remits to the NCC. It has independence written into its constitution, but it is funded by taxpayers. Will he ask it to explore the issue of redressing the high street and how it may be made more effective? Secondly, if the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) or any other hon. Member brings forward a consumer guarantee bill as

a private Member's Bill, will the Government maintain benevolent neutrality or support the guarantee concept, even if they want to amend the details?
I shall end by paraphrasing Lord Palmerston who, you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker—from history lessons, not from memory—said in 1850:
a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him".
I say that, in whatever high street, market stall, corner shop or out-of town shopping centre, and whatever service a consumer pays money for, he shall have the strong arm and watchful eye of the CIA—the consumers' interests authority—and the consumers' guarantee available to him.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on securing the debate. The House should be grateful to him for giving us an opportunity to discuss an important subject that represents a major part of my portfolio and for drawing our attention to his constituents' concerns. I acknowledge the presence of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), who has taken the trouble to be in his place, to whom my hon. Friend referred. Also present is my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss), who has shown an interest in these matters and who is with his parliamentary neighbour this evening to give him support.
I shall examine any proposals that come forward in the form of a private Member's Bill, or any other form, to give effect to the National Consumer Council's recommendations. I shall do so with a critical eye because I am concerned to ensure that any proposals are workable and not over-bureaucratic. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney prays in aid the United States, and I admire that country more than most hon. Members. I am aware, however, of the differences between the United States and the United Kingdom. I would be reluctant to take this country down the rather litigious route that the United States has taken in many instances. The costs of remedy often exceed the benefits either to consumers or producers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney rightly laid stress on the importance of giving protection to the consumer. That is a principle to which the Government and the Department of Trade and Industry have always been fully committed. I remind my hon. Friend of a passage in my Department's White Paper of January, 1988:
In consumer protection, the policy emphasis will reflect the Government's belief that the best form of protection comes fom consumers making well-informed choices and acting in their own interests. To achieve this, information can be more effective than regulation. However, where the case is made out for regulation on safety or other grounds, the Government will not hesitate to act.
That remains our position.
The consumer already enjoys the protection of a comprehensive and well-developed framework of legislation, backed by effective and equitable mechanisms for redress. The Government provide support to the National Consumer Council and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which provides an important source of advice, information and research to consumers.
Legislation, and even the new type of bureaucracy that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has suggested, is not necessarily the answer to every perceived problem. New legislation takes time and can often be over-bureaucratic, and that is a danger that exists with my hon. Friend's suggestion. Voluntary response by industry is often quicker and more effective. Consumers have benefited considerably from industry initiatives to develop codes of practice and to provide mechanisms for the resolution of disputes, driven, as ever these matters are, by the need for it to compete in the marketplace and to attract and retain the confidence of consumers in the products that it is offering. An effective consumer policy is a combination of statute law, self-regulation and information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has spoken about the importance of protecting consumers' rights when goods are bought. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 sets out what the consumer is entitled to expect and provides him with remedies if things go wrong. The Act is one of the most fundamental pieces of our statute law, covering everything, as has been said, from a box of matches to a nuclear submarine. I do not know how many claims have been made under the heading of the second item, but it is one that we like to quote.
No statute can have been more frequently effective—it is usually unseen in its operation—in everyday life. If the average shopper made only three purchases a day, for example, the number of daily transactions governed by the Act would be over 100 million. Under the Act, traders are required to sell goods which are of merchantable quality, which are fit for the purpose and which correspond to their description. Traders cannot exclude these provisions from their contracts with consumers. The Act allows the buyer, if he acts within a reasonable time, to reject goods which are not of merchantable quality and to receive back the purchase price.
If a latent defect comes to light later, after the goods have been in use for some time, the buyer is still entitled to claim damages and this right is not subject to any time limit except the normal rules which apply to the limitation of actions. In awarding damages, the courts would take into account the use the consumer had had from the goods.

Mr. Martyn Jones: This is crucial to the idea of the consumer guarantee mentioned by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter). The problem with the Sale of Goods Act is that rejection is the immediate remedy. In the case of a product that is not repairable, which the Minister mentioned, there is only action at law for repair. If a consumer guarantee were enshrined in law, the product would carry a guarantee for replacement or a refund within a statutory period. That would provide a right for consumers that they do not currently enjoy under the Act. The Minister is missing the problem with the Act in dealing with a rogue product.

Mr. Forth: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in and knowledge of the matter. He and I discussed it recently, and no doubt will do so again, as I am sure I will also discuss it with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney. I do not claim that the Act is perfect. The hon. Gentleman knows that for some time we have wanted to update it. Neither do I claim that all is perfect with guarantees. However, I am not yet convinced that the

National Consumer Council proposal is workable or ideal. I hope that, between us, we can find the best way forward. I shall strive to do so, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do so.
The Law Commissions' review of legislation governing the sale and supply of goods, published in 1987, made a number of recommendations that have been accepted by Government. The main recommendation is that the old requirement of merchantable quality should be replaced with an up-to-date term that recognises the aspects of quality—something dear to the hon. Gentleman's heart —which are important for consumers as end-users of the goods in question. The new Act will spell out that the relevant aspects in determining satisfactory quality include fitness for purpose, the appearance and finish of the goods, their freedom from minor as well as major defects, their safety and their durability. The Government have announced their intention to introduce legislation to implement those changes, which will clarify and strengthen consumers' rights.
Some have argued that consumers' rights should go further. The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend both said as much. The argument is that the right to reject and to obtain a refund should be a long-term one and should not necessarily expire after a reasonable time. They also argue that latent defects may come to light only afer some time in use. My hon. Friend referred to the famous—some would say notorious—Bernstein case of the motor car that broke down after a limited period.
The House should be aware that the Law Commissions gave very careful consideration to all the arguments when they considered this issue, but they recommended against creating a long-term right of rejection. They argued that such a right would create major commercial uncertainties and be extremely unfair to sellers. Consumers who bought a defective product would, in effect, get free use of it until the defect appeared. The seller would then be obliged to take back a used product and to refund the purchase price in full. Suppliers would be obliged to hedge against the commercial uncertainties of such a regime and the unwelcome implications for consumer prices. I should want to avoid that, and so, I suspect, would other hon. Members.
My hon. Friend welcomed the National Consumer Council's recommendations on consumer guarantees. He urged me not just to consider them, but more or less to adopt them. I have already given them careful consideration, and there is much in them that I want to think about positively. I agree that guarantees should state their terms clearly and in plain English and I could support legislation that would make such guarantees legally enforceable. I fully endorse the view that any guarantee must be additional to existing statutory protection.
But I do not accept that it is necessary to lay down detailed terms or procedures which would attach to specific products covered by consumer guarantees. To do that would be needlessly bureaucratic and would constrain rather than encourage competition on the terms of individual guarantees, and it may result in some manufacturers withdrawing existing guarantees which offer different terms, which could have the effect of leaving consumers less protected than before.
The Sale of Goods Act provides the consumer with a clear right of action against the supplier, who is normally a retailer. The NCC proposals would involve the manufacturer, who is not normally a party to the contract.


There is a risk that that would result in confusion in some disputes, which might undermine the consumer's rights against the retailer under the Sale of Goods Act.
I would welcome measures that would promote greater transparency of information about guarantees and wider and more open competition in their terms, but the NCC proposals would need more development along those lines before they would attract Government support.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of legal redress in consumer disputes and the problems associated with seeking that redress in some circumstances. Earlier this year, the Lord Chancellor announced, in response to the civil justice review, the introduction of a programme of reforms, designed to improve access to justice by speeding up, simplifying and reducing the cost of civil proceedings.
The Courts and Legal Services Bill permits the Lord Chancellor to replace the present system of jurisdiction with more flexible criteria for allocating business between the High Court and the county courts. This will enable more cases of higher value to be handled and tried in the county courts. Procedural changes, such as a requirement for early exchange of information, the introduction of new pre-trial rules covering more informative pleadings, interrogatories and admission of facts, and the creation of a new system of court control could and should also assist smaller plaintiffs to pursue claims more effectively.
A further development arising out of the civil justice review is the raising of the upper limit for small claims proceedings from £500 to £1,000. I appreciate that that may not be relevant in the case that my hon. Friend cited, but it will be a substantial increase in the facility given to consumers to benefit from the simplified proceedings.
My hon. Friend referred to the problems that his constituents had with the purchase of a motor vehicle. The code of practice for the motor industry is an important supplement to the general law covering the sale of motor cars and it is a good example of self-regulation by the responsible sector of an industry. It provides consumers not only with minimum standards in the sale, repair and

servicing of motor cars, but also with a mechanism for resolving disputes that does not entail having to go to court.
The code has the support of the Director General of Fair Trading, who also has a role in monitoring it and keeping it under review. Any proposals for changing the code are a matter betweeen the director general and the trade associations concerned, and any complaint about a member failing to abide by the code should be directed to the trade association and also to the Office of Fair Trading.
A code of practice is not intended to be a substitute for legislation, and it does not act as such. Nor is it designed to be enforced in the same way as legislation is, but codes of practice have distinct advantages over statutes. Because they are voluntary, they represent a genuine desire on the part of the traders concerned to go beyond the letter of the law in their dealings with consumers. Codes are also more flexible than statutes and can be interpreted more liberally and modified more readily. Furthermore, codes such as the motor code provide consumers with valuable alternative facilities for resolving disputes, which may be quicker, cheaper and less intimidating than going to court, particularly in the case of larger claims.
I have tried to answer most of the points raised by my hon. Friend. I have also tried to deal with some of the matters that have been considered by others, including the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, who has been listening, has been persuaded that the Government are aware of the concern shared by many hon. Members in this most important area. We shall always look positively at suggestions that may come forward in the shape of legislation or in any other form. But, above all, our concern is to ensure that we combine what is effective and practical while resisting what may be bureaucratic. In striking that balance, we shall provide the best and most effective protection for the consumer.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to One o'clock.